The High Court of Jharkhand allowed an appeal filed for quashing the decision of the state sentence review board in which the claim for premature release of the petitioner was rejected and held that while the government has discretion in remission decisions, it shouldn't blindly follow the Presiding Judge's opinion Government should not mechanically follow the opinion of the Presiding Judge if the opinion of the learned Judge does not fulfill the requirement of Section 432 (2) CrPC.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner has filed this petition to quash of the decision of the State Sentence Review Board in which the claim for premature release of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner has further made prayer for direction to release the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been in custody for more than 26 years 02 months and 19 days as per calculation issued by the superintendent the petitioner was convicted in the year 2003 and the crime was committed in 2000 and the State of Jharkhand has come forward with the new policy of remission in 2007 and earlier, the policy of 1984 was operative. He further submits that in the 1984 policy, the provisions were made that the convict will be entitled to his premature release after he completes 14 years from the date of conviction and he has completed 20 years including remission. He argued that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in view of 1984 policy and the order has not disclosed under which policy the case of the petitioner was considered and the remission was rejected. He further argued that the probation officer gave a report recommending that the petitioner may be given a chance to lead a smooth life by considering his case for premature release and stated that by releasing the petitioner, there would be no disturbing law and order.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that the premature release has been extended considering the safety and security of the society at large. He further contended that the son of the deceased has expressed apprehension about his family’s security in case of the release of the petitioner. He argued that the petitioner had been shot in broad daylight whose premature release would send a wrong message to society and the importance of judicial decisions and orders would decrease and the common citizen would lose faith in the process of justice. He further argued that the power is vested with the state government i.e., the policy decision of the state, and the high court is not required to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that the policy which is operative at the time of occurrence will apply in the case of premature release and so, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in view of the 1984 policy and the order doesn’t disclose that the order is passed under which policy.
The court further observed that Section 432(2) of CrPC provides that the appropriate Government may take the opinion of the Presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the person making an application for remission has been convicted and the power is there with the state government to suspend or remit the sentence. The court further stated that it is an absolute discretion of the State Government to decide whether the application for remission should be allowed or not and the Court can review the decision of the Government to determine whether it was arbitrary or not and the said power cannot be usurping the power of the Government and grant remission itself and if the case is made out, the Court can direct for reconsidering the matter.
The court held that the appropriate Government should not mechanically follow the opinion of the Presiding Judge if the opinion of the learned Judge does not fulfil the requirement of Section 432 (2) CrPC and the case of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the learned Presiding Judge has not given an opinion in favour of the petitioner. The court further held that the mechanical and stereotype reasons cannot be said to be a good ground and the petitioner’s application for remission should be reconsidered by the government.
The decision of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition and directed the government to reconsider the petitioner’s application for remission.
Case Title: Umesh Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P. (Cr.) No. 81 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Prasad
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Faisal Allam, Mr. Ashish Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
