Remission of sentence is a discretionary power but must be exercised non-arbitrarily. Age and physical fitness cannot be the sole grounds for refusing premature release; the convict's conduct and mental attitude during incarceration must be given due weightage.

Serial No.12

Regular List

Judgment and Order (Oral)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned decision dated 04.02.2026 of the Sentence Review Committee rejecting the application for remission of sentence of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was convicted by the Adhoc Judge, Fast Track Court, West Garo Hills District, Tura in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2026 u/s 302/364-A and was sentenced to life imprisonment vide order dated 10.12.2014. He was also convicted u/s 201 IPC and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld in Crl. A. No. 2 of 2015 by this High Court vide judgment dated 14.05.2019.

3. The materials on record reveals that the petitioner was detained at District Prison and Correctional Home, Tura on 17.06.2006 and was transferred to District Prison and Correctional Home, Shillong on 12.08.2020. As per the record, the petitioner had served 19 years 7 months 18 days of imprisonment as on the date of consideration of his application for remission by the Sentence Review Committee.

4. Ms. S. Nongseij, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of prayer of the petitioner for premature release is highly illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the same was not considered in accordance with the existing Remission Policy of the State and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court. She submits that the Sentence Review Committee mechanically rejected the prayer of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner was 40 years old, physically fit and his potential to commit further crime cannot be ruled out. She submits that the conclusion of the Sentence Review Committee about the apprehension of commission of further crime by the petitioner in future is not based on any materials on record. She further contends the recommendation of the Superintendent of District Prison and Correctional Home, Shillong, which was in favour of the petitioner, was totally ignored by the Sentence Review Committee without assigning any reason. She submits that age cannot be sole consideration for deciding an application for remission. Relying on the decision of Satish @ Sabbe V. The State of Uttar Pradesh , (2020) INSC 567, the learned counsel submits that any assessment regarding predilection to commit crime upon release must be based on antecedents and conduct of the prisoner while in jail and not merely on his age. On the same point, the decision of Zahid Hussein and Others V. State of W.B. and Another , (2001) 3 SCC 750 is also relied on. Further, the case of Laxman Naskar V. Union of India and Others , (2000) 2 SCC 595 is cited by the learned counsel to contend that the prayer of premature release must be decided as per the Rules/Policy. She, therefore, submits that the impugned decision requires interference by this Court and the respondents may be directed to release the petitioner.

5. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. R. Colney, learned GA, on the other hand, submits that the rejection of the prayer for premature release of the petitioner is not solely based on the ground of age, but also on the ground of commission of gruesome crime of kidnapping and murder of a 9 (nine) years old boy for ransom which had shaken the society. By drawing attention of this Court to clauses 7 and 10 of the Remission Policy, 2026, the learned AAG submits that the finding of the committee is in tune with the criteria laid down in the Policy as the nature of the crime and its impact on society, more particularly, on victims of the offence was taken into considerat