2023 Supreme(SC) 800

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 252 of 2023
Decided On : 25-08-2023

IMPORTANT POINT
Remission in sentence – Sentencing is a judicial exercise of power – Act thereafter of executing sentence awarded, however, is a purely executive function which includes grant of remission, commutation, pardon, reprieves, or suspension of sentence.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 432 and 433A – Constitution of India – Articles 72 and 161 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Remission in sentence – Sentencing is a judicial exercise of power – Act thereafter of executing sentence awarded, however, is a purely executive function which includes grant of remission, commutation, pardon, reprieves, or suspension of sentence – Whilst statutory under Section 432 of Cr.P.C. and constitutional under Articles 72 and 161 of Constitution powers are distinct former limited power, is still an imprint of latter (much wider power), and must be understood as such and placed in this context – This executive power which is inherently discretionary in nature, has to be exercised fairly, reasonably and not arbitrarily – Absence to do so would compel court to exercise its judicial review and in appropriate cases remit the matter for reconsideration. (Paras 9 and 10)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 432 and 433A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Remission in sentence – Life imprisonment – Remission Board rejected petitioner’s application for premature release twice – Reason for rejection of petitioner’s application, is adverse report submitted by Presiding Judge in first round which was perfunctorily relied upon and reiterated in report submitted by then Presiding Judge in second round as well – Overemphasis on Presiding Judge’s opinion and complete disregard of comments of other authorities, while arriving at its conclusion, would render appropriate government’s decision on a remission application, unsustainable – Aim and ultimate goal of imprisonment, even in the most serious crime, is reformative, after offender undergoes a sufficiently long spell of punishment through imprisonment – Apart from other considerations (on nature of crime, whether it affected society at large, chance of its recurrence, etc.), appropriate government should while considering potential of convict to commit crimes in future, whether there remains any fruitful purpose of continued incarceration, and socio-economic conditions, review: convict’s age, state of heath, familial relationships and possibility of reintegration, extent of earned remission, and post-conviction conduct including, but not limited to – whether convict has attained any educational qualification whilst in custody, volunteer services offered, job/work done, jail conduct, whether they were engaged in any socially aimed or productive activity, and overall development as a human being – Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 enables a convict to earn remissions, which are limited to one third of total sentence imposed – Special remission for good conduct, in addition, is granted by rules – It would be appropriate if Remission Board reconsidered petitioner’s application for remission afresh, considering reports of police and other authorities, post-prison record of petitioner, remissions earned (including that which is earned for good conduct) his age, health condition, family circumstances, and his potential for social engagement, in a positive manner. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Petitioner, currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment for commission of offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 approaches this court under its Article 32 jurisdiction, seeking appropriate direction to first respondent to prematurely release him, on the ground that he has been in custody for 24 years without grant of remission or parole.

Findings of Court:

Given the long period of incarceration already suffered by writ petitioner and his age, Remission Board should endeavour to consider application at the earliest and render its decision, preferably within three months from the date of this judgment. A copy of this judgment shall be marked by the Registry of this Court, to the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, who is the chairperson of the Remission Board, as well as the concerned Presiding Judge, through the Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Patna High Court.

Result : Writ Petition allowed.