1. Convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and assault seek premature release under Section 432(2) CrPC after applications were rejected based on unreasoned negative opinions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Jaswant Singh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 323 of 2022
Decided On : 13-01-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Premature release of life convicts – On ground of parity, application for remission can be reconsidered..
Premature release of life convicts – On ground of parity, application for remission can be reconsidered..
Subject
Criminal Law - Remission of Sentence
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 432 – Premature release of life convicts – Petitioner no.1, aged about 63 years; petitioner no.2, aged about 43 years and petitioner no.3, aged about 57 years on their undergoing sentence of imprisonment for about 16 years without remission (with remission about 21 years of imprisonment) had submitted their respective applications under Section 432(2) of Cr.P.C. – On ground of parity, petitioners’ applications for remission are required to be reconsidered by respondent authorities afresh – Special Judge directed to provide opinion on applications of petitioners afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning after taking into consideration relevant factors that govern grant of remission. (Paras 3, 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, who are convicts and undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment in view of order dated 13.02.2015 passed by this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1348-49 of 2015, confirming judgement and order dated 10.05.2013 passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in Criminal Appeal No. 933/2010 (arising out of Sessions Case No. 16/2006), have invoked Article 32 of Constitution of India seeking issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents for presenting the case of the petitioners to sentencing Court for fresh consideration.
Findings of Court:
After receiving the opinion of Special Judge Durg, the State of Chhattisgarh shall take a final decision on the petitioners’ applications for remission afresh as expeditiously as possible and not later than one month of receiving the opinion of the Special Judge.
Result : Writ Petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Danis Sher Khan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR Ms. Ritika Sethi, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Danis Sher Khan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR Ms. Ritika Sethi, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners seek fresh consideration of their remission applications, challenging the rejection based on the sentencing court's failure to provide reasoned opinions. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
3. The presiding judge's opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC must be reasoned and consider specific factors like societal impact and recidivism risk to enable informed executive decisions. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. An opinion for remission under Section 432(2) CrPC must be accompanied by adequate reasoning based on established guidelines; mechanical or stereotype reasons are legally insufficient. (Para 6 )
5. Writ petition allowed; sentencing court directed to provide a reasoned opinion based on established guidelines, and the State to decide on remission applications accordingly. (Para 8 )
6. What is the legal significance of the presiding judge's opinion in the grant of remission under Section 432(2) CrPC?
The opinion is a crucial procedural safeguard that enables the government to make an informed decision. It is not a mere formality or just another factor, but a means to shed light on the crime's nature, the convict's record, and other relevant factors. (Para 6 )
7. What specific factors must a presiding judge evaluate when providing an opinion on a convict's premature release?
The judge must assess whether the offence affects society at large, the probability of the crime being repeated, the convict's potential for future crimes, whether continued imprisonment serves a fruitful purpose, and the socio-economic condition of the convict's family. (Para 6 )
8. What constitutes an adequate reason in the context of a presiding judge's opinion for remission?
An adequate reason must provide an outline of the reasoning process and be a speaking order. Mechanical, stereotype reasons or mere repetitions of statutory language are insufficient and do not satisfy the requirements of Section 432(2) CrPC. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The petitioners, who are the convicts and undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment in view of the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1348-1349 of 2015, confirming the judgment and order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in Criminal Appeal No. 933/2010 (arising out of Sessions Case No. 16/2006), have invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents for presenting the case of the petitioners to the sentencing Court for fresh consideration.
2. The present petitioners along with other co-accused having been charged for the offences under Section 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Corruption Act) were tried and found guilty for the said offences by the Special Judge (SC/ST), Durg, in Special Case No. 16/2006, were sentenced to life imprisonment. It was alleged against them that all the accused, 8 in number, had constituted an unlawful assembly and had killed Kartikram and Puneet using deadly weapons like sword, axe, wooden stick etc.
3. The petitioner no. 1 Jaswant Singh, aged about 63 years; petitioner no. 2 Ajay, aged about 43 years and petitioner no. 3 Naresh, aged about 57 years on their undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for about 16 years without remission (with remission about 21 years of imprisonment) had submitted their respective applications under Section 432(2) of Cr.P.C. to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg seeking their premature release. The Jail Superintendent sought an opinion of the concerned Sessions Court which had convicted the petitioners. The Special Judge, Durg, Chhattisgarh vide the letters dated 2.7.2021, 10.8.2021 and 1.10.2021 respectively gave his opinion stating inter-alia that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not appropriate to allow remission of the remaining sentence of the said petitioners.
4. The Law Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, also vide the note dated 27.11.2021 gave an opinion that in view of the opinion given by the presiding Judge of the Sentencing Court, the petitioner no. 1 and 3 ought not to be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 433-A Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Director General, Jail and Correctional Services Chhattisgarh on 21.02.2022 referred the case of the petitioner no. 2 to the Home Department, Government of Chhattisgarh and on 02.03.2022, addressed a letter to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Jail Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, for again moving the file of the petitioner no. 1 and 3 for remission along with other convicts. On 22.3.2022, the Law Department, Government of Chhattisgarh once again gave its opinion that since the presiding Judge of the Sentencing Court had not given positive opinion, the petitioner no. 1 and 3 should not be released on remission. The Director General, Jail and Correctional Services, therefore, rejected the applications of the petitioner no. 1 and 3 for their release on remission. It appears that the application of the respondent no. 2 remained pending for consideration before the Home Department, Government of Chhattisgarh.
5. In the meantime, one of the co-accused Ram Chander, who was also convicted along with the present petitioners in the said case, had preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 49/2022, in which this Court vide order dated 22.4.2022 directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the said petitioner and directed the Special Judge to provide an opinion afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning after taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down in Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 595. The Special Judge (Atrocities Act Durg), therefore, considering the guidelines given by this Court in Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India (supra) opined inter-alia that the sentence of the prisoner
