On 30th September 2020, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish @ Sabbe V. The State of Uttar Pradesh comprising of a three-judge Bench of Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Hrishikesh Roy held that that the petitioners be released on probation in terms of Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 within a period of two weeks.
Factual Background
The victim was on his way to meet his friend where he was stopped by one of the accused who took him to his house and was threatened by a pistol by other accused. A call was made by the accused to the victim’s father for ransom money. The victim’s father filed a missing report in the police station, after which he was cautioned by the accused. Later the ransom money was renegotiated. The victim’s father took the money and went to the accused house and when he was assured that his son is safe he gave the details to the police. After that, the police caught one of the accused while the others ran away. After 2 days all the accused were caught.
They were charged with kidnapping for ransom under section 364-A IPC and section 25 of the Arm’s Act for which they have sentenced life imprisonment and a fine was awarded to each accused of the crime of kidnapping for ransom, besides a concurrent sentence of two years to Vikky and Ashok under the Arms Act.
Later all the accused appealed before the Allahabad High Court, where all the charges were proved but failed to record disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which was fatal in proving recovery of the revolver. The High Court thus dismissed the appeals and confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 364A of IPC, but conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act was set aside.
Present Proceedings
The accused filed a Special Leave Petition for premature release but the court declined to interfere with their conviction for kidnapping and accordingly refrained from granting leave to appeal. A separate counter affidavit was filed for another accused which was under consideration whereas the SLP made by the first accused was rejected by the District Magistrate Ghaziabad. Later it was decided to consider their matter as a fresh case but at last both the separate plead that was filed by the accused was rejected by the Court. Hence learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the afore- stated limited issue.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
The counsel on behalf of the state submitted that the Probation Board considered afresh Satish’s case and has refused probation for the reasons that – first, the crime is heinous, second, the petitioner is hardly 53¬-54 years old and can repeat the crime, the third, the informant has serious apprehensions against his release, and fourth, governmental authorities have adversely commented upon his release considering its direct adverse effect on the society. Likewise, for Vikky, on grounds of his age of 43 years, healthy physical condition, apprehensions of informant, and the nature of the crime; his mercy petition had not been recommended.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent
Counsel for the petitioners has very eruditely controverted the rationale and reasons embodied in both the Government Orders. It was argued that although the impugned orders have been purportedly passed under the Jail Manual and UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938; but, the mandatory factors of ‘antecedents’ and ‘conduct in prison’ have totally been overlooked, and instead various extraneous factors have been relied upon to justify the mechanical action. They urged that no attempt was made to meet the petitioners to ascertain their proclivity for committing crimes in the future, thus evidencing non¬application of mind. The lengthy imprisonment, lack of antecedents, and good conduct in jail were again underscored by counsel for the petitioners to drive home their prayers for premature release.
Court Analysis
The Constitution of India through Articles 72 and 161, embody these reformative principles by allowing the President of India and the Governor of a State to suspend, remit or commute sentences of convicts. Further, Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) streamlines such powers by laying down procedures and pre¬conditions for release. The only embargo under Section 433¬A of CrPC is against the release of persons sentenced to life imprisonment until they have served at least fourteen years of their actual sentence.
It seems to us that the petitioners’ action of kidnapping was nothing but a fanciful attempt to procure easy money, for which they have learned a painful life lesson. Given their age, their case ought to be viewed through a prism of positivity. They retain the ability to re¬ integrate with society and can spend many years leading a peaceful, disciplined, and normal human life. Such a hopeful expectation is further concretised by their conduct in jail. It is revealed from the additional affidavit filed by wife of Vikky that during the course of his incarceration in jail he has pursued as many as eight distance¬learning courses, which include (i) passing his Intermediate Examination, (ii) learning computer hardware, (iii) obtaining a degree in Bachelor of Arts; as well as numerous certificates in (iv) food and nutrition, (v) human rights, (vi) environmental studies. Vikky’s conduct shines as a bright light of hope and redemption for many other incarcerated prisoners. Compounded by their roots and familial obligations, we believe it is extremely unlikely that the petitioners would commit any act which could shatter or shame their familial dreams.
In the present case, considering how the petitioners have served nearly two decades of incarceration and have thus suffered the consequences of their actions; a balance between individual and societal welfare can be struck by granting the petitioners conditional premature release, subject to their continuing good conduct. This would both ensure that the liberty of the petitioners is not curtailed, nor that there is an increased threat to society. Suffice to say that this order is not irreversible and can always be recalled in the event of any future misconduct or breach by the petitioners.
Judgment
For the reasons stated above, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioners be released on probation in terms of Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 within a period of two weeks. The respondent¬ State shall be at liberty to impose conditions as it may deem fit to balance public safety with individual liberty.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
