IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the decision for premature release must consider individual circumstances and cannot be arbitrarily denied based on the nature of the crime.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, a life convict, who has been serving more than 22 years at Central Prison, Trichy, challenges Ext.P4 order passed by respondent No.1, rejecting his claim for premature release.

2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC by the III^rd Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc), Fast Track Court-I, Thrissur in SC No.441/2002 for having murdered a lady named Suvarna by drowning her in a pond and robbed her gold chain. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by this Court in Crl. Appeal No.418/2021 on 26/8/2021. He has completed 22 years and 5 months of actual term of imprisonment as of 13/12/2023.

3. The police authorities and the probation officer have recommended the premature release of the petitioner. The Jail Advisory Committee of the Viyyur Central Prison and Correctional Home had on 10/7/2023 also recommended the premature release of the petitioner. The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services forwarded the said recommendation to the 1^st respondent for further action. However, the State Level Advisory Committee held on 14/8/2024 rejected the recommendation. Thereafter the Government had also considered the request of the petitioner for premature release. The Government, after examining the matter in detail, found that this was not a fit case which required any intervention on the decision taken by the State Level Advisory Committee and rejected the claim of the petitioner for premature release as per Ext.P4 order.The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. I have heard Smt. Smruthi Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P. Narayanan, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for premature release is against statutory provisions which govern the premature release of a convict and the guidelines given by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the State Level Advisory Committee, as well as the Government, did not consider the recommendations of the probation officer, police authorities and Jail Advisory Committee for the release of the petitioner. Reliance was placed on Joseph v. State of Kerala and others [2023 (4) KLJ 903]. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the State Level Advisory Committee considered the matter in detail and did not recommend the premature release of the petitioner, considering the heinous nature of the crime. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that even though the State Level Advisory Committee did not recommend the premature release of the petitioner, the Government also considered the request of the petitioner for premature release and after examining the matter in detail, it was found that no intervention was required on the decision taken by the State Level Advisory Committee. It was also submitted that a convict does not have an indefeasible right to get a remission of sentence, and the grant of remission is solely at the executive’s discretion. Reliance was placed on Rajan v. Home Secretary, Home Department of Tamil Nadu and Others [(2019) 14 SCC 114] and Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 5 SCC481].

6. Ext.P1, the copy of the conviction certificate dated 13/12/2023, issued by the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy would show that the petitioner had undergone 22 years and 5 months of actual imprisonment. The Probation Officer, in his report dated 31/3/2023 [Ext.R1(a)] submitted before the Jail Advisory Committee, had recommended the premature release of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, in his report dated 17/7/2018 [Ext.R1(c)], had expressed no objection to release the petitioner. The conduct and recommendation certificate issued by the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Trichy [Ext.R1(d)] would show that the petitioner's conduct inside the prison was satisf