Point of law : A blanket stance that all persons who have murdered a woman or a child shall not be prematurely released de hors any other circumstances is not conducive to a welfare State.

JUDGMENT :

The maternal anguish of a mother, whose son is a convict has compelled her to approach this Court seeking premature release of her son from life imprisonment. The mother claims that her son thoroughly repents for his misdeed and has also transformed completely.

2. While studying for his graduation, petitioner's son Rijo Jose (hereinafter referred to as 'the convict') got embroiled in a murder case when he caused the death of a lady by the name of Mariamkutty on 16.06.2000. The trial court convicted the accused for life imprisonment, which was affirmed by this Court on 14-10-2009 in Crl.A.No.1804 of 2005. According to the petitioner, her son has been in jail for the last 22 years and two months as on August 2022, as evidenced by Ext.P6 certificate and hence she pleads for premature release of her son.

3. Concededly, the convict has, while in prison, graduated in English Literature obtained Post Graduation also in English Literature, took his Masters in Business Administration and even appeared for the preliminary examination for the Civil Services.

4. Sri. Arun Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Jail Authority had recommended the release of the convict along with another life convict. However, for reasons that are curious, petitioner's son alone was not released, while the other convict Sri. Velayudhan Nair was prematurely released. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner had filed a representation on 26.08.2022, requesting for the premature release of her son and the said request is also pending consideration without any decision having been taken. The representation refers to the transformation of the convict, including his repentance for the criminal act reflecting on the convict's reformation.

5. Sri. Noushad K.A., the learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, after referring to the statement filed by the 4th respondent, pointed out that petitioner was the accused in S.C.No.387 of 2001 on the files of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and other allied offences, which judgment was confirmed on 14.10.2009. The convict's educational achievement mentioned in the earlier paragraph was admitted. It was also pointed out from the statement filed, that the petitioner has been a well-behaved prisoner, and no complaints relating to his conduct in jail or even while he was released on parole have been reported. The learned Government Pleader submitted that though one Sri.Velayudhan Nair and petitioner's son were both recommended for release by the Jail Advisory Board by an order dated 21.08.2022, Velayudhan Nair alone was directed to be released, and the convict's recommendation for release was rejected. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that it is the specific stance of the Government not to release prisoners prematurely if they are undergoing imprisonment for crimes involving the murder of women and children.

6. I have considered the rival submissions.

7. While confirming the conviction and sentence of petitioner's son for the offence of murder, housebreaking and trespass, the Division Bench of this Court, in Crl. A. No. 1804/2005, had observed as follows: “It cannot be said that “once a criminal, always a criminal”. If the feeling of remorse has dawned on the convict, it is a factor which cannot be ignored. His desire to reform and to be useful to the family and society needs to be taken care of. The appropriate Government seems to be more equipped in this regard to take such steps as far as possible to meet the situation.” It was further observed that “the appropriate Government may consider all the aspects and reach a just conclusion. The interest of the society and the concern for the convict, who wishes to transform sincerely, will have to be considered.” The aforesaid observations of this Court indicate that even while confirming the conviction of the accused, this Court was mindful of the possible