Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Chh) 62

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHRI RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE, SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, JUDGE
Kaleshwar Ram @ Kalesh S/o Shri Ghuruwa Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) – Respondent
WPCR No. 142 of 2025
Decided on : 11-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy A.G.

Remission applications must consider the convict's post-conviction behavior and rehabilitation potential, rather than solely the seriousness of the original offense.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 325, and 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 432 - Petition for premature release - The petitioner, convicted for murder and other offenses, sought remission after serving over 20 years, but the application was rejected based on the Presiding Judge's opinion regarding the seriousness of the crime - Court emphasized the need for a reasoned approach in remission applications, considering the convict's behavior and rehabilitation potential. (Paras 3, 6, 10, 11)

(B) Remission - The principles governing remission highlight the importance of individual assessment of convicts, post-conviction conduct, and the overarching goal of rehabilitation versus retribution. (Paras 7, 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for murder after a trial and sought remission after serving 20 years, but his application was dismissed without adequate reasoning.

Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection of the remission application to be non-speaking and lacking in reasoning; thus, it set aside the decision and ordered a fresh consideration.

Issues: The main issues were whether the rejection of the remission application was justified and whether the Presiding Judge's opinion was sufficient for such a decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that remission applications must be considered on their merits, taking into account the convict's behavior and the principles of rehabilitation, rather than solely on the nature of the original offense.

Result: Petition allowed.

Order :

(Ramesh Sinha, CJ.)

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):

“10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS quashing the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 and may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reconsidered the application of the petitioner for premature release/remission of jail sentence, in the interest of justice.

10.2. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may, deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.”

2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, is that the deceased Meghnath was having illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner Kaleshwar therefore, he committed the murder of Meghnath with the help of the other co-accused. The petitioner and other accused person with the common intention committed the offence and they have been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable U/s 302/34, 307/34, 325/34 of I.P.C. and after full- fledged trial they were convicted for the offence punishable U/s 302 R/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced for Life Imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 5000/-, for the offence punishable U/s 307/34 of I.P.C., R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and for the offence punishable U/s 325/34 of I.P.C., R.I. for 03 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- vide judgment dated 03.03.2012 in Session Case No. 109/2009. Against the judgment dated 03.03.2012 passed by learned Trial Court/ Session Judge, Jashpur, Dist- Jashpur (C.G.) in Session Case No. 109/2009, the petitioner and co-accused had filed the Criminal Appeal No. 321/2012 which has been dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 22.03.2018. After completion of the mandatory substantive 14-year jail sentence, the petitioner made an application before the Jail Authority for the remission of jail sentence/his pre-release in the month of February 2024. On the said application, the Jail Authority on 12.02.2024 called for the opinion from the learned Presiding Judge regarding the remission of the remaining jail sentence/pre-release of the petitioner/ accused. That the learned Presiding Judge vide opinion letter dated 06.03.2024 opined that the petitioner was involved in the offence of serious nature, therefore he is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code and given the negative opinion on the application of the petitioner. After receiving the opinion from the Presiding Judge, respondent No.4/Jail Superintendent sent the report to respondent No.3/Director General Jail on 14.06.2024, and the same was presented before respondent No.1/State vide letter dated 05.07.2024. Respondent No.1 has rejected the application of the petitioner, ignoring that the petitioner has completed more than 14 years 07 months of substantive jail sentence on the date of his application made in the month of February 2024, and he has got the benefit of remission of more than 05 years (as on 04.02.2024), and now he has completed more than 20 years 06 months of jail sentence including the remission period as on today. That respondent authority has, without assigning any reason, rejected the application of the petitioner only on the basis of opinion given by the Presiding Judge without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the guideline framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for deciding the application for remission. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State/respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of remission in a very casual manner without taking into consideration the various judgments and judicial pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court. He further submits that subordinate legislation cannot override the provisions of the Cr.P.C . The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Rajo alias Rajwa alias Rajendra Mandal Vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 1068 has dealt