1 - Punwa S/o Ramayan @ Ramnath Aged About 89 Years R/o Village Dhotma v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.05.02 10:07:52 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:19551-DB NAFR WPCR No. 249 of 2025 1 - Punwa S/o Ramayan @ Ramnath Aged About 89 Years R/o Village Dhotma, P.S. Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shyam Das S/o Nakched Satnami Aged About 74 Years R/o Village Dhotma, P.S. Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 3 - Faaguram @ Munnu S/o Hiraram Satnami Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Dhotma, P.S. Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Deparment Of Home (Jail), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director General Of Police (Jail), Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anish Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Dy.G.A. 2
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.04.2025 1. Heard Mr.Anish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 To issue appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) setting aside impugned orders no. F 4-14/Teen-Jail/2024 dt. 05.07.2024 & F 4-42/Teen- Jail/2024 dt. 04.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.1 and direct to reconsider petitioners’ application for grant of remission, strictly as per law, in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to give such other relief9s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 05.07.2024 (w.r.t petitioner No.1) and dated 04.09.2024 (w.r.t petitioners No.2 and 3) passed by respondent No. 01 whereby petitioners' application for grant of remission of their jail sentence have been rejected. 4. The petitioners were convicted for offences under Sections 3 302/149, 302/149 and 323/149 of the IPC vide judgment dated 28.04.1994 by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.321/1987, whereby the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine. 5. After serving the jail sentence of more than 21 years, the petitioners filed an application for remission of their jail sentence under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. before the jail authority. Thereafter, respondent No.4 wrote a letter to the concerned trial Court seeking opinion vide letters dated 07.09.2023 (w.r.t petitioner No.1) and 16.10.2023 (w.r.t petitioners No.2 and 3). Learned trial Court has given its opinion and has stated that there is no objection in granting benefit of remission to the petitioners vide memo dated 13.09.2023 (w.r.t petitioner No.1) and dated 28.10.2023 (w.r.t petitioners No.2 and 3). Thereafter, the respondent No. 04 has forwarded the said opinion of the trial Court to respondent No.3 along with other requisite documents vide its letter dated 08.01.2024 (w.r.t petitioner No.1) and 27.02.2024 (w.r.t petitioners No.2 and 3). The said documents have been, thereafter, forwarded to respondent No.1 by the respondent No.3. 6. The respondent No.1 without examining the matter has rejected the petitioners application vide impugned orders dated 05.07.2024 & 04.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) for grant of remission in a mechanical manner whereby opinion of trial Court has not been 4 appreciated and no personal satisfaction has been recorded. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 has passed the impugned orders dated 05.07.2024 & 04.09.2024 without proper application of mind which is illegal and non- sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that respondent No.1 passed the impugned orders despite clear report of the jail authorities regarding behavior of the petitioners whereby petitioners were recommended for grant of remission, which is of paramount consideration in the present case. He also submits that learned trial Court which convicted the petitioners have also opined that there is no objection in grant of remission to the petitioners. Perusal of the impugned order would make it clear that there is no application of mind by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order. He contended that the respondent No.1 ought to have assigned reasons for denying the benefit of remission to the petitioners, whereas the impugned orders are passed overlooking the opinion of the trial Court which convicted the petitioners whereby the trial Court has no objection in grant of remission. He further contended that the respondent authorities failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioners have already served jail sentence of more than 21 years and their conduct has also been found good by the jail authority. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. 5 8. On the other hand, Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents while opposing this petition, submits that the application of the petitioners have been rejected in light of Rule 358(3)(g)(Two) of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. The aforesaid Rule provides that those cases shall not be placed before the Board for consideration of grant of remission in which the convicts have been sentenced under Section 302 and 149 IPC. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. The Supreme Court, in Rajo alias Rajwa alias Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar & Others {2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068} has observed as under: “22. It has been repeatedly emphasized that the aim, and ultimate goal of imprisonment, even in the most serious crime, is reformative, after the offender undergoes a sufficiently long spell of punishment through imprisonment. Even while upholding Section 433A, in Maru Ram v. Union of India [1981] 1 SCR 1196, this court underlined the relevance of post- conviction conduct, stating whether the convict, “Had his in-prison good behavior been rewarded by reasonable remissions linked to improved social responsibility, nurtured by familial contacts and liberal parole, cultured by predictable, premature release, the purpose of habilitation would have been served, If law—S. 6 433-A in this case--rudely refuses to consider the subsequent conduct of the prisoner and forces all convicts, good, bad and indifferent, to serve a fixed and arbitrary minimum it is an angry flat untouched by the proven criteria of reform.” 24. Apart from the other considerations (on the nature of the crime, whether it affected the society at large, the chance of its recurrence, etc.), the appropriate government should while considering the potential of the convict to commit crimes in the future, whether there remains any fruitful purpose of continued incarceration, and the socio-economic conditions, review: the convict’s age, state of heath, familial relationships and possibility of reintegration, extent of earned remission, and the post-conviction conduct including, but not limited to – whether the convict has attained any educational qualification whilst in custody, volunteer services offered, job/work done, jail conduct, whether they were engaged in any socially aimed or productive activity, and the overall development as a human being. The Board thus should not entirely rely either on the presiding judge, or the report prepared by the police. In this court’s considered view, it would also serve the ends of justice if the appropriate government had the benefit of a report contemporaneously prepared by a qualified psychologist after interacting / interviewing the convict that has applied for premature release. The Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 enables a convict to earn remissions, which are limited to one third of the total sentence imposed. Special remission for good conduct, in addition, is granted by the rules. {See Rules 405 and 413 of the Bihar Prison Manual, 7 2012.} If a stereotypical approach in denying the benefit of remission, which ultimately results in premature release, is repeatedly adopted, the entire idea of limiting incarceration for long periods (sometimes spanning a third or more of a convict’s lifetime and in others, result in an indefinite sentence), would be defeated. This could result in a sense of despair and frustration among inmates, who might consider themselves reformed– but continue to be condemned in prison. 25. The majority view in Sriharan (supra) and the minority view, had underlined the need to balance societal interests with the rights of the convict (that in a given case, the sentence should not be unduly harsh, or excessive). The court acknowledged that it lies within the executive’s domain to grant, or refuse premature release; however, such power would be guided, and the discretion informed by reason, stemming from appropriate rules. The minority view (of Lalit and Sapre JJ) had cautioned the court from making sentencing rigid: “73. […] Any order putting the punishment beyond remission will prohibit exercise of statutory power designed to achieve same purpose Under Section 432/433 Code of Criminal Procedure In our view Courts cannot and ought not deny to a prisoner the benefit to be considered for remission of sentence. By doing so, the prisoner would be condemned to live in the prison till the last breath without there being even a ray of hope to come out. This stark reality will not be conducive to reformation of the person and will in fact push him into a dark hole without there being semblance of the light at the end of the tunnel.” 8 11. In Joseph v. State of Kerala {2023 SCC OnLine 1211}, the Apex Court, while dealing with a similar issue, and directing release of the accused therein with immediate effect, had observed as under: “32. To issue a policy directive, or guidelines, over and above the Act and Rules framed (where the latter forms part and parcel of the former), and undermine what they encapsulate, cannot be countenanced. Blanket exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of remission, especially by way of an executive policy, is not only arbitrary, but turns the ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its head. Numerous judgments of this court, have elaborated on the penological goal of reformation and rehabilitation, being the cornerstone of our criminal justice system, rather than retribution. The impact of applying such an executive instruction/guideline to guide the executive’s discretion would be that routinely, any progress made by a long-term convict would be rendered naught, leaving them feeling hopeless, and condemned to an indefinite period of incarceration. While the sentencing courts may, in light of this court’s majority judgment in Sriharan (supra), now impose term sentences (in excess of 14 or 20 years) for crimes that are specially heinous, but not reaching the level of ‘rarest of rare’ (warranting the death penalty), the state government cannot – especially by way of executive instruction, take on such a role, for crimes as it deems fit. 33. It is a well-recognized proposition of administrative law that discretion, conferred widely by plenary statute 9 or statutory rules, cannot be lightly fettered. This principle has been articulated by this court many a time. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr v. Mohd. Ismail & Ors. {[1991] 2 SCR 274}, this court observed: “It may be stated that the statutory discretion cannot be fettered by self-created rules or policy. Although it is open to an authority to which discretion has been entrusted to lay down the norms or rules to regulate exercise of discretion it cannot, however, deny itself the discretion which the statute requires it to exercise in individual cases.” 34. Likewise, in Chairman, All India Railway Rec. Board & Ors. v. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors. { [2010] 6 SCR 291} this court explained the issue, in the following manner: “Illegality as a ground of judicial review means that the decision maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision making powers and must give effect to it. Grounds such as acting ultra vires, errors of law and/or fact, onerous conditions, improper purpose, relevant and irrelevant factors, acting in bad faith, fettering discretion, unauthorized delegation, failure to act etc., fall under the heading "illegality". Procedural impropriety may be due to the failure to comply with the mandatory procedures such as breach of natural justice, such as audi alteram partem, absence of bias, the duty to act fairly, legitimate expectations, failure to give reasons etc.” 10 35. The latitude the Constitution gives to the executive, under Articles 72 and 162, in regard to matters such as remission, commutation, etc, therefore, cannot be caged or boxed in the form of guidelines, which are inflexible. 36. This court’s observations in State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh {(2007) 13 SCC 606} are also relevant here: “38. A right to be considered for remission keeping in view the constitutional safeguards under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, must be held to be a legal one. Such a legal right emanates from not only the Prisons Act but also from the Rules framed thereunder. 39. It is now well-settled that any guidelines which do not have any statutory flavour are merely advisory in nature. They cannot have the force of a statute. They are subservient to the legislative act and the statutory rules.” 37. Classifying - to use a better word, typecasting convicts, through guidelines which are inflexible, based on their crime committed in the distant past can result in the real danger of overlooking the reformative potential of each individual convict. Grouping types of convicts, based on the offences they were found to have committed, as a starting point, may be justified. However, the prison laws in India – read with Articles 72 and 161 - encapsulate a strong underlying reformative purpose. The practical impact of a guideline, which bars consideration of a premature release request by a convict who has served over 20 or 11 25 years, based entirely on the nature of crime committed in the distant past, would be to crush the life force out of such individual, altogether. Thus, for instance, a 19 or 20 year old individual convicted for a crime, which finds place in the list which bars premature release, altogether, would mean that such person would never see freedom, and would die within the prison walls. There is a peculiarity of continuing to imprison one who committed a crime years earlier who might well have changed totally since that time. This is the condition of many people serving very long sentences. They may have killed someone (or done something much less serious, such as commit a narcotic drug related offences or be serving a life sentence for other nonviolent crimes) as young individuals and remain incarcerated 20 or more years later. Regardless of the morality of continued punishment, one may question its rationality. The question is, what is achieved by continuing to punish a person who recognises the wrongness of what they have done, who no longer identifies with it, and who bears little resemblance to the person they were years earlier? It is tempting to say that they are no longer the same person. Yet, the insistence of guidelines, obdurately, to not look beyond the red lines drawn by it and continue in denial to consider the real impact of prison good behavior, and other relevant factors (to ensure that such individual has been rid of the likelihood of causing harm to society) results in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Excluding the relief of premature release to prisoners who have served extremely long periods of incarceration, not only crushes their spirit, and instils despair, but signifies 12 society’s resolve to be harsh and unforgiving. The idea of rewarding, a prisoner for good conduct is entirely negated.” 12. Even this Court, in a number of cases, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sangeet v. State of Haryana {AIR 2013 SC 447}, Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab {2013 Cri.L.J. 1559}, Laxman Naskar v. Union of India {(2000) 2 SCC 595}, Union of India v. Sriharan {(2016) 7 SCC 1} and Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh {AIR 2022 SC 2017} had directed remitted the matter back to the State to decide the case of the petitioners therein and to consider the matter in light of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra). 13. The orders passed by the respondent authorities rejecting the application of the petitioners for grant of remission {5.7.2024 and 4.9.2024 (Annexure P/1) are non-speaking and have been passed without application of mind and without taking into consideration the ratio laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court in the cases (supra), and as such, they are set aside. 14. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the State Government to decide the application of the petitioners for remission afresh. The State Government will call for the opinion of the concerned learned Additional Sessions Judge / Sessions Judge afresh, who will provide his opinion on the petitioners’ application within one month from the date of requisition as per Laxman Naskar (supra) and thereafter, the State Government will decide petitioner's 13 application within two month from the date of receipt of opinion from learned Judge in light of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) and also the observations made herein. 15. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu