1. Convict seeking premature release after serving over 30 years for multiple life sentences under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 491
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Rajan – Petitioner
Versus
The Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu and Ors. –Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 321 of 2018
Decided On : 25-04-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Sentences under a provision struck down as ultra vires as also those served put cannot be considered while considering representation for remission.
With striking down of section 27(3), Arms Act the requirement of consultation with Central government is done away with.
Remission is prerogative of appropriate Government.
Rejection of representation once does not debar the petitioner from representing afresh.
Sentences under a provision struck down as ultra vires as also those served put cannot be considered while considering representation for remission.
With striking down of section 27(3), Arms Act the requirement of consultation with Central government is done away with.
Remission is prerogative of appropriate Government.
Rejection of representation once does not debar the petitioner from representing afresh.
Subject
Remission and Premature Release - Life Imprisonment
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 432 and 433 – Premature release – Petitioner convicted u/s 395, 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860; and Section 3 r/w Sections 25(1A) and 27(3), Indian Arms Act and sentenced to life imprisonment – Section 27(3) having been struck down as ultra vires cannot be reckoned for considering premature release – Similarly, conviction u/s 395 IPC and 3/25(1A), Arms Act cannot be reckoned – Petitioner already serving our the sentences under these provisions – Consultation with Central Government no more required – Representation for remission has to be considered in light of conviction under other ;provisions only. (Para 10, 11, 13)
(2012) 3 SCC 346; (2016) 8 SCC 313; (2016) 7 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 432 and 433 – Remission – Prerogative of appropriate Government. (Para 16)
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.61 of 2016 – Distinguished
2019 (2) SCALE 225 – Referred
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 432 and 433 – Remission – Rejection of representation once does not debar the petitioner from representing afresh – Respondents directed to process the representation made by the petitioner dated 5th February, 2018. (Para 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims that he is a refugee from Sri Lanka. He was named as an accused in relation to an offence committed on 27th July, 1988. The prosecution case was that the petitioner, along with co-accused, committed dacoity at the house of one Pitchaikara Grounder and while he was trying to escape in a Maruti Van, the police and common public erected a barricade, upon which the petitioner fired from a machine gun killing three persons and injuring four. The petitioner came to be convicted for offences punishable under Sections 395, 302 (3 counts), 307 (4 counts) of IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 25(1A) and 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC, life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 307 (4 counts) of IPC for each count as also awarded capital sentence for offence punishable under Section 302 (3 counts) and further 5 years’ imprisonment for offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 (1A) of the Indian Arms Act. The sentences awarded to the petitioner were directed to run concurrently.
The petitioner had assailed the said decision before the High Court by way of Criminal Appeal which was heard along with Death Reference Case No.3/2007. The High Court, affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the concerned offences but converted the death sentence into life imprisonment on each of the 3 counts. The High Court judgment has attained finality.
Since the petitioner had undergone actual sentence for a sufficiently long period of time, he applied for premature release. That representation was considered by the Advisory Board held on 20th January, 2010, but came to be rejected for the reasons recorded in the opinion of the Advisory Board. The same was duly considered by the competent authority of the State Government and the proposal for premature release came to be rejected. It appears that the petitioner, after a gap of around 8 years, once again made another representation on 5th February, 2018, for his premature release
The grievance of the petitioner is that the competent authority of the State has failed to process the representation made by the petitioner on 5th February, 2018, for inexplicable reasons, which it was obliged to decide at the earliest opportunity as per the mandate of law.
Finding of the Court:
Sentence u/s 3, 25 and 27 Arms Act and section 395, IPC cannot be considered for remission.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- constitutional law
- administrative law
Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Wajahat Ansari, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv. Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv. Mr. Y. William Vinoth Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikkishnan, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. S. Parthaa Sarathi, Adv. Mr. S. Raja Rajeshwaran, Adv.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Wajahat Ansari, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv. Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv. Mr. Y. William Vinoth Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikkishnan, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. S. Parthaa Sarathi, Adv. Mr. S. Raja Rajeshwaran, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims entitlement to release based on time served and unconstitutional statutes; State opposes citing crime severity and necessity of Central Government consultation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Term sentences running concurrently with life imprisonment are deemed served; consultation with Central Government is unnecessary if only IPC life sentences remain for consideration. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 19 )
4. Grant of premature release is a prerogative of the competent authority under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC, not a right to be supplanted by the court. (Para 16 )
5. Petition disposed of directing the State Government to consider the representation for premature release expeditiously without requiring Central Government consultation. (Para 20 )
6. How are term sentences treated when they run concurrently with a life sentence?
When a court directs a life sentence and term sentences to run concurrently, the term sentences are considered served upon the expiry of their respective durations during the period of life imprisonment. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. When is consultation with the Central Government required for the premature release of a prisoner convicted under both State and Central laws?
Consultation is required for remission of sentences under Central laws. However, if such sentences are declared ultra vires or have already been served, the State Government remains the appropriate authority. (Para 13 , 20 )
8. Is the grant of premature release a matter of right or judicial mandate?
Premature release is not a matter of privilege or right but a power coupled with duty conferred on the appropriate Government under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC. (Para 16 )
9. Does remission for one life sentence automatically result in release if the prisoner has multiple life sentences?
No, multiple life sentences are superimposed. Remission or commutation granted for one offence does not ipso facto result in the remission of sentences awarded for other offences. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 )
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been preferred inter alia seeking premature release of the petitioner as he has already undergone over 30 years of actual imprisonment. With remission, the total sentence undergone is above 36 years.
2. The petitioner claims that he is a refugee from Sri Lanka. He was named as an accused in relation to an offence committed on 27th July, 1988, registered as FIR in Crime No.104/88 at Thanipadi Police Station. The prosecution case was that the petitioner, along with co-accused, committed dacoity at the house of one Pitchaikara Grounder and while he was trying to escape in a Maruti Van, the police and common public erected a barricade, upon which the petitioner fired from a machine gun killing three persons and injuring four. The petitioner was charged for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 395, 353, 506(2), 302(3 counts), 307 (4 counts) of IPC, Section 302 r/w 419 of IPC, Section 307 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 25(1A), 27(3) and 28 of the Indian Arms Act. After a full-fledged trial by the District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannnamalai, for the aforementioned offences, vide judgment and order dated 25th January, 2007, the petitioner came to be convicted for offences punishable under Sections 395, 302 (3 counts), 307 (4 counts) of IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 25(1A) and 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC, life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 307 (4 counts) of IPC for each count as also awarded capital sentence for offence punishable under Section 302 (3 counts) and further 5 years’ imprisonment for offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 (1A) of the Indian Arms Act. The sentences awarded to the petitioner were directed to run concurrently.
3. The petitioner had assailed the said decision before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by way of Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2007, which was heard along with Death Reference Case No.3/2007. The High Court, by its judgment and order dated 26th February, 2008, affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the concerned offences but converted the death sentence into life imprisonment on each of the 3 counts. The High Court judgment has attained finality.
4. Since the petitioner had undergone actual sentence for a sufficiently long period of time, he applied for premature release. That representation was considered by the Advisory Board held on 20th January, 2010, but came to be rejected for the reasons recorded in the opinion of the Advisory Board. The same was duly considered by the competent authority of the State Government and the proposal for premature release came to be rejected vide order dated 14th June, 2010, bearing GO(D) 6033. It appears that the petitioner, after a gap of around 8 years, once again made another representation on 5th February, 2018, for his premature release, which reads thus:
“Annexure P/6
Date:05.02.2018
MOST URGENT
To
1. The Home Secretary,
Home Department of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai.
2. The Additional Director General of Police
and The Inspector General of Prisons,
Wannels Road, Egmore,
Chennai-600008.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons,
Vellore Range, Vellore.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Vellore Central Prison,
Vellore.
From
Rajan,
Convict No.______,
Presently lodged at
Vellore Central Prison,
Vellore.
Sir,
Sub: Re. the inclusion of my name in the list called for the premature release of life convict prisoners on the occasion of Birth Centenary of Bharat Ratna, Puratchi Thalaivar Dr.M.G. Ramachandran, as per G.O. Ms. No.64, Home (Pri IV) Dept., Dt. 01.02.2018.
Ref.: 1. Lr. of the Office of Inspector General of Prisons, No.4369/PS1/2018-1, Dt.02.02.2018.
2. State of Punjab Vs. Dalbir Singh – 2012 (3) SCC 346
I am a life convict lodged in Vellor
