Presiding Judge Required To Give Adequate Reasons In Opinion On Sentence Remission U/S 432(2) CrPC: Chhattisgarh High Court

Inadequate reasons in the opinion of the presiding officer of the sentencing court would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal observed.

The court further observed that the purpose of Section 432(2) CrPC is to enable the executive to make an informed decision taking into consideration all the relevant factors.

For context, Section 432 (2) of CrPC states that whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.

The case in brief

In this case, the petitioner, who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life, submitted an application under Section 432 of CrPC for the remission of his jail sentence but it has been dismissed by the State Government only on the basis of the recommendation of the Presiding Judge who had convicted the petitioner, without assigning a sufficient reason. This order was challenged in the instant plea before the High Court.

Court's observations

The Court perused the order of the Government to note that the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, in his recommendation, simply observed that he had perused the case and held that since the offence committed by the petitioner herein is heinous in nature, his case for remission cannot be considered and on the basis of the said recommendation of the Session Judge, the State Government rejected petitioner's application for remission.

The Court noted that this observation was in the teeth of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ram Chander vs State of Chhattisgarh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401, wherein it was held that an opinion accompanied by inadequate reasoning would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2).

In Ram Chander's case (relying upon Laxman Naskar's case), it was stressed that the relevant factors include assessing (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 this very case, it was also held that if the opinion of the presiding judge does not comply with the requirements of Section 432 (2) or if the judge does not consider the relevant factors for grant of remission laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595, the government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh

Against this backdrop, the High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the State of Chhattisgarh and the matter was remitted to the State Government to decide the petitioner's application for remission afresh.

The State Government has been directed to call for the opinion of the Session Judge, who will have to provide his opinion on the petitioner's application within one month from the date of requisition and thereafter, the Court ordered, the State Government shall decide the petitioner's application within one month from the date of receipt of an opinion from Session Judge.

Case title – Chingdu v. State of Chhattisgarh and others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 73

Click here To Read/Download Order