The Patna High Court, while rejecting a petition seeking premature release by a person convicted under Section 302 IPC stated that there is no iota of doubt that in the present case, the petitioner would be covered in the first part of Section 433A Cr.P.C., he has been sentenced for imprisonment for life on conviction for an offence under Sections 304/149 IPC for which death is one of the punishments provided by law and thus in his case he would not be released from prison unless he has served at least 14 years of imprisonment.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, convicted under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code filed the present petition after competition of about thirteen years of incarceration seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.8 to place the case of the petitioner before the State Remission Board and praying to direct the Board to grant premature release to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has already completed more than ten years of his physical incarceration.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Section 432 Cr.P.C. confers power upon the appropriate government to suspend the execution of a sentence or remit the whole part of the punishment of any person. The power of the government to commute a sentence of imprisonment for life to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or with a fine is conferred under Section 433 Cr.P.C. Section 433A Cr. P.C. provides restrictions on the power of remission of commutation in certain cases. The counsel relied upon Clause (iii) of Notification as contained in Memo No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002 issued by the Department of Home (Special), Government of Bihar to submit that the life convict who has completed fourteen years of imprisonment with remission and ten years without remission will be eligible for consideration of their premature release.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state submitted that to put up a proposal before the Remission Board for premature release, it is mandatory that the convict must have served fourteen years of actual custody and twenty years of custody with remission. It is submitted that since the petitioner would complete fourteen years of actual custody and twenty years with remission, his proposal for premature release shall be placed before the Board for consideration.
Observations of the Court:
The Court referred to the said notification and stated that those convicts male or female who are undergoing life imprisonment and whose case is covered under Section 433A Cr.P.C. shall not be eligible and to be considered for premature release unless he/she serves at least 14 years of incarceration without remission. Further, it was stated that on a bare reading of Section 433A Cr.P.C., it would appear that this provision is in the nature of a restriction on the power of remission or commutation as conferred upon the competent authority under Section 432 Cr. P.C and according to this provision, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 Cr.P.C. into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.
Further, it was stated that there is no iota of doubt that in the present case, the petitioner would be covered in the first part of Section 433A Cr.P.C., he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life on conviction for an offence under Sections 304/149 IPC for which death is one of the punishments provided by law. Thus, in his case, he would not be released from prison unless he has served at least 14 years of imprisonment.
The decision of the Court:
The court stated that on completion of 14 years of actual incarceration and 20 years with remission, the application for premature release of the petitioner shall be considered by the Board in accordance with law within a reasonable time.
Case Title: Mannu Ray @ Mannu Rai vs The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Case no.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1342 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Shandilya
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. P.N. Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
