In the case of Laxman Naskar v. Union of India & Ors
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 406 of 2022 Prakash Sao ..... … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ..... … Respondents Versus --------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner For the State ------ : : ------ Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate. Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C. to A.A.G.-IA. 05/ 25.07.2023 This petition has been filed for quashing of the decision of the State Sentence Review Board dated 13.05.2022, whereby, the claim of premature release of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that after considering all the facts and reports placed upon, decided to reject the premature release of the convict. Prayer has also been for a direction upon the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith. 2. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted in S.T. No. 13 of 2003 by the judgment dated 04.08.2004, whereby, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. He submits that the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1653 of 2004, which was ultimately dismissed by the judgment dated 18.03.2015 by the Division Bench. He further submits that in view of the policy dated 18.04.2007, issued by the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, the case of the petitioner is covered and by the impugned order, on the flimsy ground, the petitioner has not been directed to be released by the State Sentence Review Board. He further submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 22 years including the remission. 3. Mr. Modi, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the State Sentence Review Board has considered the case of the petitioner and rightly rejected the same. He submits that the adverse report is there by the office of Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh against the petitioner. He further submits that this court may not interfere in the matter. 4. In view of such submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the contents of Annexure-5 of the petition, which is the report of the District Probationary Officer, Ramgarh, wherein in so many words he has recommended that the petitioner can be released considering that now he has aged about 55-56 years and there is no chance of his doing the same crime and there is no criminal antecedent. 5. In the case of Laxman Naskar versus Union of India & Ors. -2- reported in AIR (2000) SC 986, in which, the subject matter of premature release of the convict was considered and it has been held that for premature release of the convict, various factors enumerated in the said judgment has to be considered, which formed the basis of issuance of resolution in the year 2007 by the State of Jharkhand. Pursuant to that the policy of State is there. 6. In the case of Union of India versus Sriharan alias Murgan & Ors. reported in 2016 (1) JLJR 121 (SC) the Constitution Bench held as follows:- “236. The power under Sections 432/433 Cr.P.C. and the one exercisable under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, as laid down in Maru Ram (supra) are streams flowing in the same bed. Both seek to achieve salutary purpose. As observed in Kehar Singh (supra) in clemency jurisdiction it is permissible to examine whether the case deserves the grant of relief and cut short the sentence in exercise of Executive Power which abridges the enforcement of a judgment. Clemency jurisdiction would normally be exercised in the exigencies of the case and fact situation as obtaining when the occasion to exercise the power arises. Any order putting the punishment beyond remission will prohibit, exercise of statutory power designed to achieve same purpose under Sections 432/433 CrPC. 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. 238. The law on the point of life imprisonment as laid down in Godse’s case (supra) is clear that life imprisonment means till the end of one’s life is and indeterminable. Any sentence characterised as minimum which must be undergone before any remission could be considered, cannot affect the character of life imprisonment but such direction goes and restricts the exercise of power of remission before the expiry of such stipulated period. In essence, that by very nature fixed the sentence term -3- any such direction would increase or expand the statutory period prescribed under Section 433-A of Cr.P.C. Any such stipulation of mandatory minimum period inconsistent with the one in Section 433-A, in our view, would not be within the powers of the Court. Our answer to Sub Question (b) of Question in para 52.1 is: Question b: Whether as per the principles enunciated in paragraphs 91 to 93 of Swamy Shraddananda (2), a special category of sentence may be made for the very few cases where the the death penalty might be substituted by punishment life or imprisonment for a term in excess of fourteen years and to put that category beyond application of remission? Answer. In our view, it would not be open to the Court to make any special category of sentence in substitution of death penalty and put that category beyond application of remission, nor to stipulate any would mandatory period of actual imprisonment the one prescribed under inconsistent with Section 433-A of Cr.P.C. It was held that the Courts cannot and ought not deny to a it be permissible imprisonment for for 7. prisoner the benefit to be considered for remission of sentence. 8. In the case of State of Haryana and Others versus Jagdish reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-46 thereof, has held as follows:- “46. At the time of considering the case of premature release of a life convict, the authorities may require to consider his case mainly taking into consideration whether the offence was an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large; whether there was any chance of future recurrence of committing a crime; whether the convict had lost his potentiality in committing the crime; whether there was any fruitful purpose of confining the convict any more; the socio- economic condition of the convict’s family and other similar circumstances.” 9.
Decision
In view of the above and considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish (Supra), this matter is remanded back to the Jharkhand State Sentence Review Board to consider in light of -4- the judgment passed in the case of Jagdish (supra) and pass a fresh order. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. With the above observation, this petition is disposed of. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)