Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely On Reports Of Presiding Judge Or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors For Premature Release
Case: Rajo @Rajwa@Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar
Coram: Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 252 OF 2023
Court Observation: “overemphasis on the presiding judge’s opinion and complete disregard of comments of other authorities, while arriving at its conclusion, would render the appropriate government’s decision on a remission application, unsustainable. The discretion that the executive is empowered with in executing a sentence, would be denuded of its content, if the presiding judge’s view – which is formed in all likelihood, largely (if not solely) on the basis of the judicial record – is mechanically followed by the concerned authority. Such an approach has the potential to strikes at the heart, and subvert the concept of remission – as a reward and incentive encouraging actions and behaviour geared towards reformation – in a modern legal system.”
“Such a report, cannot be relied on as carrying predominance, if it focusses on the crime, with little or no attention to the criminal”
“However, this is not to say that the appropriate Government should mechanically follow the opinion of the Presiding Judge. If the opinion of the Presiding Judge does not comply with the requirements of Section 432(2) or if the Judge does not consider the relevant factors for grant of remission that have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000, )the Government may request the Presiding Judge to consider the matter afresh.”
“The views of the presiding judge, are based on the record, which exists, containing all facts resulting in conviction, including the nature of the crime, its seriousness, the accused’s role, and the material available at that stage regarding their antecedents. However, post-conviction conduct, particularly, resulting in the prisoner’s earned remissions, their age and health, work done, length of actual incarceration, etc., rarely fall within the said judge’s domain”.
“In our view Courts cannot and ought not deny to a prisoner the benefit to be considered for remission of sentence. By doing so, the prisoner would be condemned to live in prison till the last breath without there being even a ray of hope to come out. This stark reality will not be conducive to reformation of the person and will in fact push him into a dark hole without there being semblance of the light at the end of the tunnel.”
“The Board thus should not entirely rely either on the presiding judge, or the report prepared by the police. In this court’s considered view, it would also serve the ends of justice if the appropriate government had the benefit of a report contemporaneously prepared by a qualified psychologist after interacting/interviewing the convict that has applied for premature release”
The concerned presiding judge is hereby directed to provide an opinion on the petitioner’s application for premature release, by examining the judicial record, and provide adequate reasoning, taking into account the factors laid down in Laxman Naskar’s case within one month. With the benefit of this new report, the Remission Board may reconsider the application – without entirely or solely relying on it, but treating it as valuable (maybe weighty) advice that is based on the judicial record. Given the long period of incarceration already suffered by the writ petitioner and his age, the Remission Board should endeavour to consider the application at the earliest and render its decision, preferably within three months.”
Previous Posts
Keywords
Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied, Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely On Reports Of Presiding Judge Or Police
