IMPORTANT POINT
Convict has no indefensible right to be released under M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act.

Headnote:Madhya Pradesh Prisoner s Release on Probation Act, 1954 and Rules -Release of convict on licence-Release is not for a limited period but is for entire duration of sentence or until licence is revoked-High Court Division Bench allowed number of Letter Patent Appeals and directed for release of all appellants-Appeal by brother of deceased-Convicts have no indefensible right to be released-Manner of Commission of crime is a relevant consideration and brutal way of crime itself could be sole ground to decline licence to release-High Court committed factual error in impugned order-It was liable to be set aside.
Held : Apart from the fact that there are factual infirmities in the impugned judgment, it is also to be borne in mind that the victim and the family of the victim who have suffered at the hands of the convict have also some rights. The convicts have no indefensible right to be released. The right is only to be considered for release on licence in terms of the Act and the Rules. The Probation Board and the State Government are required to take into consideration the relevant factors before deciding or declining to release a convict. In the present case, the Probation Board had not recommended the release. The State Government had confirmed the order of the Board. The writ petition had failed before the learned Single Judge. The facts of individual cases were not considered by the Division Bench. In the case of Ramesh Kumar, the stand of the State Government was that he along with six others had formed an unlawful assembly and murdered Jitendra son of Shashi Mohan Yadav on 20th September, 1994 in Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh causing 17 injuries on him with swords, knives and gupti and that Ramesh Kumar was the accused in 14 cases filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The manner of commission of crime is a relevant consideration. In a given case, the manner of commission of offence may be so brutal that it by itself may be good sole ground to decline the licence to release. The Rules provide for detailed procedure for consideration of application for release. Once rejected, again application for release can be made after two years. The Board comprises of Home Secretary of State Government or any other empowered officer, I.G. of Prisons or Deputy I.G. and another member. The affidavit filed by the State Government in case of Ramesh Kumar also states that he has been released under the impugned order of the High Court after serving less than 8 years and he is already intimidating people after his release from prison. The case of the appellant is that no notice was issued to him or any other member of the family and, therefore, there was no occasion for the family to object to the release of the convict. Therefore, the High Court also committed factual error in observing that notice had been issued to the family members of the victims. The facts are required to be examined in every case individually which was not done. In a given case, the mere fact that the family members of the victim were not objecting or were supporting release may not be sufficient, by itself, so as to direct the release of the convict on that basis alone. In yet another case, by itself, it may be a very strong factor. The fact that a co-accused has been released again, by itself, may not be decisive. In nutshell, the facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration individually. Likewise, the mere fact that one of the members of the Board or the District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police or the Panchayat has recommended release is by itself of no consequence. The recommendation is of the Board and not of individual member and the decision is to be taken having regard to all the relevant factors. The State Government and the Board have to take into consideration not only the conduct of the convict but also his criminal antecedents; the effect of such release on the victims or their family; the propensity of the convict to commit further criminal act and other similar factors which may be considered relevant. The order of the State Government cannot be interfered with only because another view is possible. (Paras 7 and 8)

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-Leave granted.

2. By the impugned common judgment, the High Court allowed number of Letter Patent Appeals and directed the authorities to release all the appellants, who were before the Division Bench, from prison within a period of 15 days. In criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3759/02, the judgment of the High Court directing release of Ramesh Kumar who was found guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC for murder of deceased Jitendra, has been challenged by his brother - Arvind Yadav on permission granted to him to file the Special Leave Petition. The State has also filed appeal challenging the direction of the High Court for release of Ramesh Kumar (Crl.A. arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4397/02). The directions of High Court to release other convicts are subject matter of challenge in connected appeals.

3. The crime was committed in the year 1994. The Sessions Court, by judgment and order dated 26th August, 1997, convicted Ramesh Kumar for offence under Section 302 IPC. The appeal filed by Ramesh Kumar challenging his conviction is pending before the High Court. Release from prison has been sought by Ramesh Kumar under Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder. Under the Act, release on licence is not for a limited period and is for entire duration of the sentence or until the licence to release is revoked. The Probation Board under the Act and the Rules did not recommend the release of the convict. The orders of the Probation Board dated 10th April, 2001 and affirmed by the State Government on 25th April, 2001 were challenged by the convict in the High Court in Writ Petition No. 4532/01. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge holding that the Board had taken note of factual scenario and had observed that the convict along with others had preplanned murder of the deceased and committed the murder in most cruel manner by lethal weapons and that the manner in which the murder is committed comes within the realm of antecedents . It was held that the order passed by the Probation Board was just and proper and did not call for interference and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.

4. The Division Bench in the judgment under appeal allowing the Letter Patent Appeals has observed that the opinion to release or not is to be based on consideration of all the aspects of convict s antecendents preceding his entry into prison including antecedents prior to the crime; circumstances of the case; conduct subsequent to crime and in prison and no single aspect by itself would be decisive nor can it be ignored and the total picture is relevant. The Division Bench has also observed that for formation of opinion, it is also to be considered whether the convict would abstain from the crime, lead peaceful life if released on probation and not repeat the offence and revert back to the life of criminality and has no potentiality to commit crime. The other aspects that can be considered are age, his social and economic conditions, the relationship with the family of the victim etc. and on consideration of other similar factors, opinion is required to be formed whether the convict is entitled to premature release on licence under the provisions of the Act or not. Having reached the aforesaid conclusions, the learned Division Bench noticed that in all cases, Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate and Probation Officer had recommended the cases of petitioners for release on licence and in cases noticed in para 10 of the impugned judgment, the non-official member of the Board had recommended the release of convicts on probation and in none of the cases the relation of the victims had objected to their release on probation and that there was no evidence suggesting extreme brutality in the commission of crime. It would be useful to reproduce the reasons that prevailed with the Division Bench in directing the release of all the appellants who

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 520

IMPORTANT POINTConvict has no indefensible right to be released under M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act.

Login now and unlock premium legal research

IMPORTANT POINT
Convict has no indefensible right to be released under M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act.