The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that whenever a prisoner completes 14 years actual imprisonment, they become eligible for consideration for premature release.
Further, blanket exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of remission, especially by way of an executive policy, is not only arbitrary, but turns the ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its head.
Propounding the reformative approach, the Bench further ruled that the practical impact of a guideline, which bars consideration of a premature release request by a convict who has served over 20 or 25 years, based entirely on the nature of crime committed in the distant past, would be to crush the life force out of such individual, altogether.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner, undergoing a life imprisonment sentence for a crime committed in 1996, punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) has now sought appropriate direction to the State Government to prematurely release him as he has been in custody (i.e., actual imprisonment) for over 26 years, and served a sentence of over 35 years (including over 8 years of remission earned).
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the inmate shall be released after completion of 20 years of sentence; and the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) which prescribes mandatory release after 25 years of sentence.
It was urged that the Petitioner had a legal right to be considered for remission given the safeguards of a convict under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India; this legal right was guaranteed by the Prison Act, and the Rules framed under it.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was urged that the nature of the crime that it was premediated and cold-blooded murder, with robbery should not allow the Court to consider remission.
Observations of the Court:
As per Section 77 of The Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 [hereafter ‘2010 Act’] the state government is empowered to, either suo moto or on recommendation of an Advisory Committee, prematurely release well-behaved, long term convicted prisoners with the objective of their better reformation and rehabilitation, as per prescribed rules.
It was opined that whenever a prisoner completes 14 years actual imprisonment, they become eligible for consideration for premature release.
Further, blanket exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of remission, especially by way of an executive policy, is not only arbitrary, but turns the ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its head.
Propounding the reformative approach, the Bench further ruled that the practical impact of a guideline, which bars consideration of a premature release request by a convict who has served over 20 or 25 years, based entirely on the nature of crime committed in the distant past, would be to crush the life force out of such individual, altogether.
In the present case, it was noted that as per the records produced by the State, the petitioner has earned over 8 years of remission, thus demonstrating his good conduct in jail. The discussions in the minutes of the meetings of the Jail Advisory Board are also positive and find that he is hardworking, disciplined, and a reformed inmate.
The decision of the Court:
Accordingly, writ petition was allowed by the Apex Court.
Case Title: Joseph v. The State of Kerela and Ors.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO(S). 520 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 737 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Sanjay Jain
Advocate for Respondents: Adv. Harshad V. Ramdeen
Read More @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :