Life imprisonment entails incarceration for life unless remission is granted under Section 432 of Cr.P.C.; prisoners do not have an automatic right to release after a fixed term.

Order :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

On 07.03.1993, two persons, in the course of robbing the passengers of an APSRTC Bus, in Guntur district, had set fire to the bus, resulting in the death of 23 persons, including a six year old girl. These two persons were convicted for offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 392, 307, 341 and 440 of I.P.C in S.C.No.662 of 1993, by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. Upon such conviction, and after hearing both sides, on the question of sentence, the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, on 07.09.1995, passed a sentence of death on both the persons. The conviction and sentence were affirmed, in R.T. No. 1 of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 620 of 1995, by judgment dated 02.11.1995, by the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh. The appeal filed before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, in Crl.A.No.193 of 1996, was dismissed on 30.08.1996. Thereafter, the Hon‟ble President of India, in exercise of his powers, under Article 72 of the Constitution of India, commuted the sentence of Death to that of life imprisonment for both these persons. The III Additional District Judge, on 21.05.1998, had issued a consequential warrant of commitment on a sentence of imprisonment for life. The operative part of the warrant reads as follows:

“This is to authorize and require you, the said SUPERINDENT to detain the said prisoner S. Chalapathi Rao (A-2) in your custody in the said jail together with this warrant and carry the aforesaid SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT as ordered by the PRESIDENT OF INDIA into execution according to law.”

2. Both these persons have been in jail since then. The daughter of one of these persons, namely, S. Chalapathi Rao, (hereinafter referred to as the prisoner) has filed this Writ petition seeking release of her father from central prison, Nellore. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the affidavit, is:

i) The prisoner has been in jail since 1993 and has completed 25 years of actual imprisonment, by the time of filing of the Writ Petition. He was never granted regular parole for one month, as per his eligibility, in the past 25 years. He was granted emergency parole on four occasions. He was released for 48 hours, on escort parole to attend his father‟s funeral on 29.08.2001. He was granted parole, for 14 days, in 2008 and surrendered in time, on 22.05.2008. Thereafter, he was granted 48 hours escort parole, in 2014, to attend the funeral of his mother. The 4^th parole was given for three days, in June 2014, to attend the death ceremony of his mother.

ii) The prisoner had enrolled himself into various degree courses, which he had completed and has reformed himself. He has taken up painting and has drawn up hundred of pictures while in the prison. On account of his good behavior, the head of the prison, in which he was lodged, is said to have recommended his release to the government, by communication, dated 25.09.2014. The prisoner is said to have applied on various occasions for regular parole of one or two months, which was rejected eight times, in writing.

iii) Rule 320(A) of the A.P. Prisoner Rules, 1979 stipulates that a sentence of imprisonment for life or for more than 20 years for the purpose of that rule shall be deemed to be a sentence of imprisonment for 20 years. Since the sentence of the prisoner, was commuted to life imprisonment, it would mean that the sentence works itself out, upon completion of imprisonment for 20 years.Accordingly, the prisoner would have to be released.

iv) The jurisprudence of this country, is to treat imprisonment as a method of reformation and corrective justice. In view of the exemplary behavior of the prisoner and the manner in which he was improved himself and has assisted the prison authorities, the release of the prisoner would be appropriate and necessary.

3. The 3^rd respondent filed a counter affidavit, on 27.12.2018.Thereafter, a rejoinder was filed by the writ petitioner. After the filing of the rejoinder,