Premature release of life convict not deniable solely on murder gravity absent societal impact, considering age and service period.

[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(D) No. 1457 dated 17.11.2025 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner's father, who is a life convict and for premature release.

2. The petitioner is the daughter of the life convict. The father of the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in S.C.No.124 of 2005 by the judgment dated 17.10.2005. The same was confirmed by this Court in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2007 by judgment dated 07.03.2013. The petitioner's father had undergone sentence for more than 15 years. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking for premature release. The representation made by the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board and based on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, the files were placed before the Government and the Government through the impugned proceedings dated 17.11.2025 rejected the request made for premature release. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

3. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit. They have taken a stand that even though the Probation Officer had recommended the case for premature release, the District Collector by relying upon the report of the Superintendent of Police had not recommended the premature release considering the gravity of the offence committed by the accused person. The same was considered by the Government and the request was rejected. The respondents have taken a further stand that the premature release cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is left open to the Government to consider all the relevant facts before granting or rejecting the claim for premature release. Accordingly, the respondents have sought for dismissal of this petition.

4. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

5. In the case in hand, the detenu is said to have committed an offence of murdering his wife by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze. The conviction and sentence of the detenu has been confirmed and he has already served sentence of 15 years, 5 months and 17 days and the convict is aged about 71 years. The representation for premature release was made by none other than the daughter of the life convict. This Court also takes into consideration the recommendation that was made by the ground level officer, namely, Probation Officer.

6. The District Collector had given a negative report based on the report given by the Superintendent of Police. This was only on the ground that the nature of crime was serious.

7. In the considered view of this Court, the nature of offence that has been committed by the accused person does not have any serious impact on the public interest and the said request for premature release has been made by the daughter of the life convict. Every case of murder has an element of gravity in it. Therefore, when it involves a murder case such request cannot be rejected on the ground that the crime is grave in nature unless it has a societal implication.

8. Considering the fact that the life convict was aged about 71 years and he had served the sentence for more than 15 years and the nature of offence that has been committed by the life convict does not have any serious societal implication and the request itself has been made by the daughter of the life convict, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the first respondent made in G.O.(D) No. 1457 dated 17.11.2025 and the same is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to