SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta,Devendra Kachhawaha, JJ.
Nema Ram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 59/2021
Decided on : 15-03-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. K.R. Bhati, for the Appellant; Mr. Farzand Ali, AAG-cum-GA, for the Respondent.

Conviction for a serious crime does not automatically bar parole eligibility.

Headnote:

Parole - Permanent Parole - Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 - Section 433A of Cr.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The convict-petitioner applied for permanent parole, which was rejected based on his conviction for gang rape. The court held that the conviction for a serious crime does not automatically bar parole eligibility.

Finding of the Court:

The court quashed the impugned recommendations and remanded the matter to the State Government for reconsideration of the convict's case for permanent parole.

Issues: Denial of permanent parole based on conviction for a serious crime.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction for a serious crime does not automatically bar parole eligibility. The convict had fulfilled the legal requirements for consideration for permanent parole under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the State Government was directed to reconsider the convict's case for permanent parole within two months.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard. Perused the material available on record.

2. The convict-petitioner applied for grant of permanent parole. His application has been rejected vide recommendations dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure-4). Aggrieved thereby, the convict has approached this Court through this writ petition for assailing the adverse recommendations.

3. The permanent parole has been denied to the convict merely for the reason that he has been convicted for committing heinous crime of gang rape. Law is well settled by a catena of decisions including the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan: AIR 2018 SC (Criminal) 37 that the conviction for a serious or heinous crime by itself cannot operate as absolute bar for denying parole to the prisoner who has otherwise acquired eligibility for release on parole. The issue regarding grant of permanent parole to convicts who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for such an offence which does not carry death sentence as one of the punishments, was considered by this Court in the case of Smt. Suman Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Criminal Writs No.430/2018) decided on 19.02.2019, wherein this Court held as below:-

    "We have heard and appreciated the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the statutory provision i.e. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 and various orders placed on record.

Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference :-

"9. Parole Period. - A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, [one fourth] of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on 1st parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not he is not likely to replace into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the 3 [State Committee] for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned; the Chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In case the permanent release on parole is rejected, the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence;

[Provided that cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission, but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above.

Section 433A of Cr.P.C. postulates that:-

"Restriction on powers of remission or Commutation in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of impris

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top