2020 Supreme(SC) 448

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Vineet Saran, JJ.
Pyare Lal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1003 of 2017
Decided on : 17-07-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Principles of Section 433-A of Cr.P.C. do not and cannot apply to exercise of constitutional power either under Article 72 or under Article 161 of Constitution. No limitation can be read into exercise of such constitutional power.
(2) Power of amnesty – Entirety of matter must be before Governor for exercise of power under Article 161 of Constitution and all relevant aspects including seriousness of crime and manner in which crime was committed must also be part of consideration.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Articles 72/161 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 433-A – Premature release of convict – Principles of Section 433-A of Code do not and cannot apply to exercise of constitutional power either under Article 72 or under Article 161 of Constitution – No limitation can be read into exercise of such constitutional power – Sovereign power would not be bound by restrictions emanating from Section 433-A of Code. (Para 10)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 432, 433 and 433-A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Constitution of India – Article 161 – Premature release of life convict – Mere length of imprisonment may not by itself regenerate goodness in a convict – Rules of remission may be effective guidelines of a recommendatory nature – No individual facts or material pertaining to any of cases were placed before Governor and benefit in each of cases was conferred by Executive itself in terms of Policy – Governor did not have occasion to look into issues such as severity of crime or manner in which crime was committed or impact of crime on Society or how matter was seen and considered by concerned courts while holding or upholding that concerned convicts were found guilty of offences in question – Entirety of matter must be before Governor for exercise of power under Article 161 of Constitution and all relevant aspects including seriousness of crime and manner in which crime was committed must also be part of consideration – That exercise of power alone, where all relevant facts and circumstances of case were considered, is to be accepted to be correct and valid – Modalities adopted in present matter show that individual facts and circumstances of case were not even placed before Governor – Basic aspects viz., manner in which crime was committed, impact of crime on society and seriousness of crime got completely suppressed and relegated in background under norms laid down in the policy and it was then left to Executive to see whether any individual case came within parameters laid down by policy – Basic facts and circumstances of case were not even looked into – Matter referred to Larger Bench to consider as to whether in exercise of power conferred under Article 161 of Constitution a policy can be framed, whereunder certain norms or postulates are laid down, on satisfaction of which benefit of remission can thereafter be granted by Executive without placing facts or material with respect to any of cases before Governor and whether such exercise can override requirements under Section 433-A of Code. (Paras 4.3, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15)

Facts of the case:

Appellant (original Accused No.1) stands convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to other punishments including fine and default sentence under certain other offences. While granting Special Leave to Appeal, this Court by its Order dated 04.07.2017 rejected prayer for bail. Another application for bail was thereafter preferred and when the application came up for consideration, it was reported that after having completed 8 years of actual sentence and the Appellant being aged above 75 years, in accordance with the existing policy of the State Government, he was prematurely released in 2019. This Court, therefore, called upon the State to file an affidavit indicating whether the policy permitted premature release even before completion of actual sentence of 14 years in connection with an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

Findings of Court:

The manner in which the crime was committed, the impact of the crime on the Society and the seriousness of the crime got completely suppressed and relegated in the background under the norms laid down in the policy and it was then left to the Executive to see whether any individual case came within the parameters laid down by the policy. The basic facts and circumstances of the case were not even looked into. The correctness and propriety of such exercise is the matter in issue.

Result : Matter referred to Larger Bench.