'District Judge's Opinion Only Reflected Trial Court Order, Caused Prejudice': Meghalaya HC Quashes Rejection Of Remission Of Convict's Life Sentence

The Meghalaya High Court recently set aside an order passed by the Secretary, Department of Prisons & Correctional Services, Meghalaya Government, rejecting a petition of a murder convict seeking remission.

The court said that the authorities concerned failed to seek the relevant report of the Superintendent of the Prison wherein the petitioner was interned and the opinion rendered by the District Judge did not take into consideration the guidelines of the Supreme Court on the issue.

The single-judge bench of Justice W. Diengdoh further quashed the opinion of the District Judge, Shillong which stated that the remission should not be considered as the manner in which the crime was committed was brutal in nature and that the petitioner has the potential to repeat the crime and secondly, that the crime was committed by a syndicate who are still on the run.

The Court observed:

“…….the opinion of the learned District Judge has reflected only the observations made based on the judgment of the Trial Court passed in the case, that too, only on the observations that the crime committed was done so in a brutal manner and furthermore, that there appears to be a syndicate at work which is still at large, meaning that the applicant/convict is also part of such syndicate, when no such observations or findings was ever made by the learned Trial Judge who has passed the initial judgment. This part of the observation being taken cognizance of by the relevant authority while considering the petition for remission has further caused prejudice to the petitioner's cause.”

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the petitioner who has been convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302, 382 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for varying periods and more specifically, to undergo imprisonment for life as regard the offence under Section 302 IPC.

The petitioner had sought relief of remission of sentence, primarily on the ground that he has completed more than 14 years of imprisonment as provided under Section 432 read with Section 433A of the CrPC.

The petitioner has filed several applications before the concerned authority with a prayer for remission of his sentence. However, the said authority being unresponsive, the petitioner approached the Court by way of a writ petition.

During the proceedings of the said writ petition, the petitioner came to know of the order dated September 23, 2022 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Prisons & Correctional Services whereby his petition seeking remission was rejected, the same being based on the opinion of the learned District Judge, Shillong, who, vide opinion dated July 14, 2022 has opined that the remission should not be considered as the manner in which the crime was committed was brutal in nature and that the petitioner has the potential to repeat the crime and secondly, that the crime was committed by a syndicate who are still on the run.

Thus, the petitioner vide the present petition approached the Court with a prayer to set aside and quash the said order and opinion and to direct release of the petitioner by remitting the rest of his sentence.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that District Judge has failed to appreciate the main ingredients required to be considered in a case of prayer for remission of sentence, since nothing has been reflected in his opinion as to the—

(i) antecedents of the petitioner

(ii) his conduct in prison and

(iii) the likelihood of him committing a crime, if released.

It was further submitted that the petitioner is complaint whatsoever as far as his character and conduct is concerned. In fact, during his period of imprisonment, he has undergone a certificate course in handicraft and candle making and was given a certificate by the WISE Social Service Centre, St Mary's Convent, Shillong in this respect.

The petitioner's Counsel submitted that the petitioner was also recognised in his efforts to help his fellow inmates in many areas for which the Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority has also recommended that he be appointed as one of the Para Legal Volunteers.

It was further averred that the petitioner has also completed a course in theology and as such, is well prepared to be reintegrated in society if granted remission of sentence.

The Court noted that under Section 432 of the CrPC, the opinion of the presiding judge of the court who had passed the sentence was required to be obtained and it can only mean the Sessions Judge, since a criminal case is always taken up by the Sessions Judge in a sessions triable cases such as the one in question.

“Even if the judge who had passed the sentence is no longer available as in the present case, it would be but proper for the opinion to be sought for or to be given by the succeeding Sessions Judge of the concerned court. The fact that the opinion was given by the District Judge, Shillong who has not stated that he has done so in his capacity as the Sessions Judge, would, in the considered opinion of this Court render any such opinion given as not tenable in law. Therefore, the relevant authority while passing the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 (supra) could not have relied on the opinion of the District Judge, such impugned order passed was on a wrong premise,” the Court said.

It was further observed by the Court that it would have been convenient for the relevant authority to seek the report of the prison authorities to study the case of the applicant/convict within the parameters of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar (Life Convict) v. State of W. B. & Anr. (2000) 7 SCC 626.

However, the Court highlighted that there is nothing on record that such a report has been sought for or that the District Judge has taken such guidelines into consideration while giving his opinion.

“…….the authorities concerned has failed to seek the relevant report of the Superintendent of the Prison wherein the petitioner was interned and as a result, while seeking the opinion of the learned District Judge, he has also failed to give his opinion based on the factors which ought to have been considered, some of which are found stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as was done in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra). This, in turn, has resulted in the final decision rendered by the authority concerned to reject the prayer of the petitioner. The premise relied upon is therefore unfounded,” the Court said.

Thus, the Court set aside and quashed the impugned order of the Secretary as well as the opinion passed by the District Judge.

“Without the necessity of the petitioner having to file a fresh application, the concerned authorities would take up the same from the records and reconsider the same following due procedure. This exercise is preferably to be completed within 45(forty five) days from the date of communication of this order to the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Prisons & Correctional Services,” the Court directed.

Case Title: Shri Nabam Tai v. The State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2022 

Click Here To Read/Download Order