1. Convict sentenced to life imprisonment — Application for premature release under Section 432 CrPC and Prison Rules — Rejection based on sentencing judge's negative opinion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 373
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Ram Chander - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 49 of 2022
Decided On : 22-04-2022
Important Points
The government's discretion in granting remission is subject to the procedural safeguard of the presiding judge's opinion, which must be reasoned and guide the government's decision.
Subject
Criminal Law - Remission of Sentence
Act Referred
Headnote
Remission - Convict's Application for Premature Release - Section 302 IPC - Section 149 IPC - Section 432 CrPC - Section 433A CrPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a convict serving a life sentence for multiple offences including murder, sought premature release after completing 16 years of imprisonment. The presiding judge and the State Government opined against granting remission, citing the nature of the crime and lack of positive conduct by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that while the government has discretion in granting remission, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must be fair, reasonable, and informed. The opinion of the presiding judge is a mandatory procedural safeguard, and the government's decision should be guided by it. The Court directed the presiding judge to provide a reasoned opinion considering all relevant factors, and the State to reconsider the petitioner's application for remission.
Issues: 1. Whether the government's discretion in granting remission is subject to judicial review for arbitrariness. 2. Whether the opinion of the presiding judge is binding on the government. 3. Whether the presiding judge's opinion must be accompanied by adequate reasoning.
Ratio Decidendi: The government's power of remission is not absolute and must be exercised fairly and reasonably. The opinion of the presiding judge under Section 432(2) of the CrPC is mandatory and should guide the government's decision. The presiding judge's opinion must be accompanied by adequate reasoning to enable an informed decision by the government.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, directing the presiding judge to provide a reasoned opinion and the State to reconsider the petitioner's application for remission.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- constitutional law
- administrative law
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Danish Sher Khan, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Danish Sher Khan, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether the presiding judge's opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC is binding on the government — Requirement of reasoned opinion based on specific convict-conduct factors. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. Executive power of remission is subject to Article 14 — Section 432(2) CrPC procedure is mandatory — Opinion must be reasoned and not mechanical. (Para 11 , 12 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 )
4. Remission decisions must be informed and fair — Mandatory procedure under Section 432(2) CrPC requires a reasoned opinion considering the convict's potential for recidivism and socio-economic conditions. (Para 12 , 17 , 20 , 24 )
5. Petition allowed — Direction to presiding judge to provide fresh reasoned opinion — Direction to State to decide remission application afresh. (Para 25 , 26 )
6. Is the power of remission an absolute executive discretion?
No. While the government has discretion to remit or refuse sentences, this power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The decision must be informed, fair, and reasonable, remaining subject to the rule of law and the guarantee of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. Is the procedure for seeking the presiding judge's opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC mandatory?
Yes. The procedure is a mandatory safeguard to prevent arbitrary remissions. The ultimate order of suspension or remission must be guided by the opinion of the presiding officer of the sentencing court to ensure the decision is well-informed. (Para 16 , 17 )
8. What is the legal weight of the presiding judge's opinion in remission applications?
The opinion is a guiding factor that provides critical insight into the nature of the crime and the convict's background. It is not a mere formality; however, the government should not mechanically follow it if the opinion lacks adequate reasoning or ignores relevant factors. (Para 17 , 20 , 21 )
9. What criteria must a presiding judge consider when providing an opinion on premature release?
The opinion must be reasoned and consider specific factors: whether the offence affected society at large, the probability of recidivism, the convict's potential to commit future crimes, the purpose of continued confinement, and the convict's family socio-economic conditions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud. J.
The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been instituted by a convict, who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life upon being convicted for the commission of offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code1[“IPC”]. He seeks the issuance of a writ directing the first respondent to grant him pre-mature release. The factual background has been set out below.
Factual Background
2. The petitioner and co-accused came in a tractor carrying deadly weapons and assaulted the complainant and killed his father and brother, when they were sitting near a village pond along with other villagers. The cause of the enmity between the parties was the confiscation of shisham wood belonging to one of the co-accused by the forest department and the damage caused to his motorcycle and tractor, for which the accused persons suspected the complainant and his family. The trial court2[ST No 16/2006] convicted the petitioner and the other accused on 7 December 2010. The petitioner was convicted of offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 324/149 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. While a charge was also framed under Section 3(2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes Act 1989 since the complainant and his family belonged to a Scheduled Caste, the trial court acquitted all the accused of the charge because no evidence was found to show that the complainant or the deceased were humiliated or intimidated on the basis of their caste. The sentence was confirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh3[Criminal Appeal No. 933/2010] on 10 May 2013. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the petitioner preferred a special leave petition4[Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1348-49 of 2015] before this Court which was dismissed.
3. On 25 September 2021, the petitioner completed 16 years of imprisonment without remission and submitted an application for premature release to the respondent under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule 19685[“Prison Release Rules”] Rule 358 provides thus:
" Rule 358 - Premature Release of Prisoners Sentenced to Life Imprisonment
……..
(3)(A). The matter of every male or female prisoner who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment after 17th December, 1978 and who are convicted under the punishable offences under Section 121, 132, 302, 307 and 396 of IPC or under any other criminal laws, in which capital punishment is one of the sentences, shall be taken into consideration for him/her premature release from the jail with this condition where such convict has completed the period of imprisonment of 14 years necessary sentence of imprisonment without remission subject to the consideration of such prisoners shall not be prohibited under legal provisions.
(B) The matter to premature release of all other male prisoners serving the sentence of life imprisonment shall only be taken into consideration only in that condition if they have spent the period of minimum 14 years imprisonment without remission and if they have completed actual imprisonment of 10 years without remission.
…..
(D) The matter to premature release of all such prisoners serving the sentence of life imprisonment shall only be taken into consideration only in that condition if they have attained the age of 65 years and if they have completed actual imprisonment of 7 years without remission."
4. The State Government is empowered under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure6[“CrPC”] to suspend or remit sentences. Sub-section (2) of Section 432 provides that the appropriate government may take the opinion of the presiding judge of the court before or by which the person making an application for remission has been convicted on whether the application should be allowed or rejected, together with the reasons for such opinion. Sub-section (2) of Section 432 reads thus:
"Section 432- Power to suspend or remit sentences.
…..
(2) Whenever an appli
