Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Govt For Failing To Consider Remission/ Commuting Sentence Of Eligible Convicts

A Division Bench comprising of Justices Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary held that the provisions are mandatory in nature and the Government has a bounden duty to consider remission under Section 432/ commuting sentence after 14 years under Section 433 and 434 of the Code.

"We find that in the State of U.P. even after 14 years of incarceration does not even send the matter to the Magistrate for re-evaluation the cases for remission as per mandate of Sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C. and as held by Apex Court in catena of decisions even if appeals are pending in the High Court," the Bench said at the outset while hearing the Criminal Jail Appeal of a rape accused who suffered incarceration for 20 years.

'Prosecutrix Testimony Not Reliable': Allahabad High Court Acquit Rape Accused After 20 Yrs In Jail, Appeal Remained Defective For 16 Years

Whereas the Court found that the accused had been falsely implicated in the case and set aside the conviction order of the Trial Court, it proceeded to observe,

"Section 433 and 434 of the Cr.P.C. enjoins a duty upon the State Government as well as Central Government to commute the sentences as mentioned in the said section. We are pained to mention that even after 14 years of incarceration, the State did not think of exercising its power for commutation of sentence of life imprisonment of the present accused and it appears that power of Governor provided under Article 161 of the Constitution of India are also not exercised though there are restriction to such power to commute sentence."

The Bench noted that the provisions were enacted with an object to remit the sentence awarded to the accused if it appears that the offence committed by him is not so grave.

In the facts of the instant case, the Court said that there is no reason as to why the accused is not entitled to remission.

"His case should have been considered but has not been considered. Remission/ commutation of sentence under Sections 433 and 434 of the Cr.P.C. is in the realm of power vested in the Government. The factual scenario in the present case would show that had the Government thought of taking up the case of the accused as per jail manual, it would have been found that the case of the appellant was not so grave that it could not have been considered for remission / commutation."

Seeing such sorry state of affairs in the State, the Bench requested the Registrar (Listing) through the Registrar General to place the matter before the Chief Justice to ensure that periodical listing of matters be taken up in the High Court so that those who are in jail for more than 10 or 14 years, where the appeals are pending, may at least get their appeal heard which are mainly jail appeals.

The Bench further ordered that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Law Secretary, State of UP, who shall impress upon all the District Magistrates across the State to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration as per mandate of Sections 432 and 433 of CrPC, even if appeals are pending in the High Court.

Case Title: Vishnu v. State of UP

Click Here To Download Order