Jharkhand High Court Asks State Govt To Reevaluate Application For Premature Release Of Life Convict Serving Sentence Since Over 26 Yrs

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “In the case in hand, the case of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the learned Presiding Judge has not given opinion in favour of the petitioner and the said opinion has already been quoted hereinabove. Looking into the opinion given by the Presiding Judge, it appears that he has not fulfilled the guidelines which had been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra). These guidelines include: (i) whether the offence affects the society at large; (ii) the probability of the crime being repeated; (iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; (iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and (v) the socio-economic condition of the convict's family.”

“In that case, it was reiterated that while deciding the application of the convict for premature release, these facts are required to be considered. The opinion must be in teeth of statute under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C.”

The above ruling came in a petition filed for quashing of the decision of the State Sentence Review Board issued under the signature of Joint Secretary to the Government, Home Prisons and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby, the claim for premature release of the petitioner was rejected. A further prayer was made for a direction to release the petitioner.

In light of the case's factual background, the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to serve a life term of rigorous imprisonment by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge XIII, Dhanbad, in conjunction with several other co-accused individuals. Subsequently, the petitioner lodged a Criminal Appeal, and the complainant also filed a Criminal Revision petition seeking an increase in the petitioner's sentence.

The Criminal Revision petition was allowed, resulting in the petitioner's sentence being elevated to the death penalty. The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP), which eventually led to the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment.

It is noteworthy that another individual, Shiv Shankar Singh, who was also convicted to serve a life sentence through the same conviction judgment, has since been released. However, the petitioner's appeal for release has been denied, with the rationale that the opinion of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge was divergent.

The petitioner had been in custody for more than 26 years 02 months and 19 days as per calculation dated 03.11.2021 issued by the Superintendent, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribag.

The Court observed that, according to the 1984 policy, a case can be considered for premature release after 14 years from the date of conviction and after 20 years, the convict is eligible for remission. The Court further observed that the incident occurred in 2000, and the petitioner was convicted in 2003, aligning the petitioner's case with the 1984 policy.

The Court pointed out, “The Government of Jharkhand has come forward with the new policy in the year 2007 and this aspect of the matter has already been set at rest in batch of criminal writ petitions which was decided by this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No.262 of 2014 along with other cases and the said order was passed considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Jagdish, reported in [(2010) 4 SCC 216] and in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the policy which was prevailing on the date of consideration for premature release of a life convict, the benefit of the same should be given to the convict.”

“Based on that, in the said writ petitions this Court held that the policy which is operative at the time of occurrence will apply in the case of premature release. Thus, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in view of 1984 policy. In the impugned order, it is not disclosed based on which policy the said decision has been taken by the State Sentence Review Board,” the Court added.

The Court considered two letters—one from the Probation Officer, Home (Prisons), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, and another from the Superintendent of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribag, whereby both expressed their opinion that there would be no issues if the petitioner were released on remission.

The Court also took into account the opinion of the District and Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad, who argued that releasing the petitioner, a life convict, would send a negative message to society and erode trust in the justice system, which was the basis for the Review Board's rejection of the petitioner's release.

The Court emphasized that it is entirely at the discretion of the State Government to decide whether to grant remission, as established in the case of State of M.P. v. Ratan Singh (1976) 3 SCC 470; however, this discretion must be exercised in accordance with the law and not arbitrarily. The Court clarified that the discretion vests with the Government to suspend or remit the sentence, but that order must be in accordance with law and not arbitrarily.

The Court emphasized, “It is well known that the prerogative of the executive is subject to the rule of law and fairness in State action embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court can review the decision of the Government to determine whether it was arbitrary or not and the said power cannot be usurp the power of the Government and grant remission itself and if the case is made out, the Court can direct for reconsidering the matter.”

Placing reliance on Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, reported in [(2022) 12 SCC 52], the Court said, “In view of the above, the mechanical and stereotype reasons cannot be said to be a good ground. Thus, it appears that the opinion of the learned Presiding Judge is not in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra).”

Accordingly, the Court directed the Government to reevaluate the petitioner's application for remission, and the competent authority to seek a fresh opinion from the Presiding Judge within 15 days of receiving a copy of this order.

The Court further ordered the Presiding Judge to provide a new opinion, supported by appropriate reasoning following the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar (Supra), within one month, and once the Government receives this opinion, they must make a final decision regarding the petitioner's application for remission within the subsequent month.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed in above terms and disposed of.

Counsel/s For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate

Counsel/s For the State : Mr. Faisal Allam, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-III Mr. Ashish Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-III

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 65

Case Title: Umesh Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others

Case No.: W.P. (Cr.) No. 81 of 2022

Click Here To Read / Download Judgment