Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Atbir – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 714 of 2022 (Arising Out Of SLP(Crl.) No. 7887 of 2021)
Decided on : 29-04-2022
Delhi Prison Act, 2000 – Section 2(h) – Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 – Rule 1199 and Para 1223(I) – Furlough – Denial of – Appellant is a whole life convict whose death sentence was commuted to life sentence – In Rules of 2018, eligibility requirement to obtain furlough is of ‘3 Annual good conduct reports’ and not ‘3 Annual good conduct remissions’ – Expressions employed in Clause (I) of Rule 1223 of Rules of 2018 are that prisoner ought to maintain ‘Good conduct in the prison and should have earned rewards in last 3 Annual good conduct report’ and further that he should continue ‘to maintain good conduct’ – Even these expressions cannot be read to mean that prisoner ought to earn ‘good conduct remissions’ – In scheme of Rules of 2018 it cannot be said that earning rewards is equivalent to earning remissions – When furlough is an incentive towards good jail conduct, even if person is otherwise not to get any remission and has to remain in prison for whole of reminder of his natural life, that does not, as a corollary, means that his right to seek furlough is foreclosed – Even if he would spend some time on furlough, that will not come to his aid so as to seek remission because of fact that he has to remain in prison for whole of reminder of his natural life – Presidential Order dated 15.11.2012 bars parole as also remission but there is no mention of treatment of entitlement towards furlough – Even if appellant would be on furlough, he would be deemed to be serving sentence for all time to come – Entitlement of furlough cannot be decided in case of present nature with reference to question as to whether any remission would be available or not – Whole of scheme of granting furlough is based on approach of reformation and as incentive for maintaining good conduct – Even if a prisoner like appellant is not to get any remission in his sentence and has to serve sentence of imprisonment throughout his natural life, neither requirements of his maintaining good conduct are whittled down nor reformative approach and incentive for good conduct cease to exist in his relation – If he maintains good conduct, furlough cannot be denied as a matter of course – Impugned orders set aside and case of appellant for grant of furlough restored for reconsideration of Director General of Prisons. (Paras 12, 12.1, 13, 13.1, 14.2, 14.3, 17 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, serving the sentence of imprisonment for whole of his natural life after commuting of death sentence by President of India, has preferred this appeal on being aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2021, as passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 3345 of 2019 dismissing his writ petition against the order dated 21.10.2019, as issued by the Director General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Tihar, Janakpuri, New Delhi declining his prayer to grant furlough.
Findings of Court:
Even if the appellant is to remain in prison for whole of remainder of his life, the expectations from him of good conduct in jail would always remain; and the lawful consequences of good conduct, including that of furlough, cannot be denied, particularly when the same has not been prohibited in the order dated 15.11.2012.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the entitlement to furlough as an incentive for good conduct and reform persists independently of the existence of remission or parole rights, especially when the presidential order explicitly does not prohibit furlough. The court held that the purpose of furlough is rooted in encouraging good behavior and reform, and therefore, its denial solely on the grounds that the prisoner is serving a life sentence without remission or parole is unjustified. The court emphasized that the conditions for granting furlough are based on the prisoner’s conduct and reports, which remain relevant and protected under the applicable rules, regardless of the restrictions imposed by the presidential order (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, serving the sentence of imprisonment for whole of his natural life after commuting of death sentence by the Hon’ble President of India, has preferred this appeal on being aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2021, as passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 3345 of 2019 dismissing his writ petition against the order dated 21.10.2019, as issued by the Director General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Tihar, Janakpuri, New Delhi declining his prayer to grant furlough.
2.1. The prayer of the appellant for grant of furlough has been declined by the orders aforesaid essentially with reference to the conditions of the order dated 15.11.2012 issued by the Hon’ble President of India on a mercy petition whereby, even while modifying the sentence of death as awarded to the appellant to the one of imprisonment for life, it was provided that the appellant would remain in prison ‘for the whole of the remainder of his natural life without parole and there shall be no remission of the term of imprisonment’.
2.2. The contention on behalf of the appellant essentially is to the effect that the aforesaid terms of the order dated 15.11.2012 are of no debarment, so far as his entitlement to furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 20181[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Rules of 2018’.] is concerned.
3. With reference to the foregoing broad outline of the present case, the relevant background aspects could be briefly noticed as follows:
3.1. The appellant was charged of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 24 of 1996 dated 08.02.1996, registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi on the accusation that he caused the death of his step-mother, stepbrother and step-sister by multiple knife-blows. After trial, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicted the appellant of the offence aforesaid by the judgment dated 10.09.2004 and awarded the sentence of death to him by the order dated 27.09.2004. The reference for confirmation of death sentence as also the criminal appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence were decided together by the High Court of Delhi by its judgment dated 13.01.2006. The appeal was dismissed and the death sentence was confirmed. Further to that, Criminal Appeal Nos. 870 of 2006 and 877 of 2006, as filed by the appellant and co-accused, were considered and decided by this Court on 09.08.2010. After examining the material placed on record and on analysis of the relevant facts and circumstances, this Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant and, finding it to be a case falling in ‘rarest of the rare category’, confirmed the sentence of death awarded to him, while also confirming the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the co-accused. This Court, inter alia, observed and held as under: -
“48. Though the accused Atbir was also at the age of 25 at the relevant point of time, considering his hunger and lust for property, killing his own family members when they had no occasion to provoke or resist and causing 37 knife-blows on vital parts of all the three persons, we conclude that it is a gravest case of extreme culpability and the rarest of the rare case and death sentence alone would be proper and adequate.
49. We have already noted that the accused had no justifiable ground for his action. We are also satisfied that the victims were helpless and undefended. Taking into consideration all the facts and materials, it is crystal clear that the entire act of Atbir amounts to barbaric and inhuman behaviour of the highest order. The manner in which the murder was carried out in the present case is extremely brutal, gruesome, diabolical and revolting as to shock the collective conscience of the community.
50. In the light of the above discussion, we confirm the conviction and sentence of death imposed
Furlough – When furlough is an incentive towards good jail conduct, even if person is otherwise not to get any remission and has to remain in prison for whole of reminder of his natural life, that do....
Furlough is a discretionary relief under the Delhi Prison Rules, limited to inmates who meet specific eligibility criteria, including good conduct remissions, which the petitioner could not satisfy.
(1) Grant of furlough must be balanced against public interest and can be refused to certain categories of prisoners.(2) Grant of release on furlough is a discretionary remedy – A prisoner is entitle....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility of a convicted prisoner for temporary release on furlough under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988....
The judgment emphasizes the public interest in granting furlough, considering the reformation theory of sentencing and the potential threat to society posed by habitual offenders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
