Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Naran Mahato vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 December, 2023
19
12.12.2023
mb
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
W.P.A. No. 24276 of 2023
Narayan Mahato @
Naran Mahato
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury,
Mr. Avishek Bhandari,
Mr. Dipayan Dan
...for the petitioner
Mr. Anirban Roy,
Mr. Sk. Md. Galib,
Ms. Sujata Mukherjee
...for the State
1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be
kept on record.
2. The petitioner who is in custody, being
convicted primarily under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, for a period of 19 years,
seeks premature remission. It is contended
that on the application of the petitioner on such
count, the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB),
which was improperly constituted, took a
decision refusing the petitioner's prayer. It is
contended that since the composition of the
Board was not in consonance with the existing
guidelines, the said decision ought to be set
aside on such score alone.
2
3. Secondly, the convicting court's opinion
was not taken within the purview of Section
432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Thirdly, the well-settled yardsticks which are
required to be adverted to, were not taken into
consideration by the SSRB in refusing the
petitioner's request for remission. In such
context, learned counsel places reliance on
Gopal Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal, a
judgment of this Court, reported at AIR Online
2022 Cal 2520, where under similar
circumstances, a release of the convict-in-
question was directed.
4. Learned counsel also submits that in the
judgment of Biresh Poddar's case, passed in
WPA No. 14257 of 2023 on July 28, 2023, this
Court had categorically deprecated the
composition of the self-same SSRB and had
directed a reconstitution of the Board. However,
since the petitioner was also refused remission
by the same Board, which was the subject
matter of scrutiny in Biresh Poddar, the
impugned refusal ought to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State
submits that in deference to the direction
passed in Biresh Poddar, the SSRB is being
reconstituted. It is submitted that all the
3
relevant considerations are required to be
adhered to while considering cases of remission
and, for such purpose, the matter be remanded
to the newly constituted SSRB.
6. A perusal of the impugned decision
refusing the petitioner's request for remission
shows that the same is palpably cryptic and
does not take into account any of the relevant
yardsticks for considering a case of remission.
The authorities merely placed undue stress on
the fact that the offence was grave in nature. In
a cryptic manner, it was observed that the
chances of deterioration of law and order
situation would come in the way of releasing the
petitioner. It was also observed that considering
potentiality of the petitioner and apprehension
on chances of further organized crime by the
convict, such premature release was not
recommended.
7. I find that there is nothing whatsoever to
corroborate the conclusion that the petitioner
has sufficient potential to reorganize a similar
crime or that the petitioner would, even after 19
years of incarceration, be such a threat to
society that he could tilt the law and order
situation of his village for the worse.
4
8. The mere gravity of the offence, for which
the petitioner was convicted in the first place,
cannot be a ground for refusal of remission by
itself. In fact, one of the major yardsticks which
are to be looked into for such purpose is the
present conduct of the petitioner/convict in
incarceration. No report whatsoever is found to
have been relied on while refusing the
petitioner's request for remission. Hence, it is
palpable that the conduct of the petitioner in
custody all along and his current demeanour
has not been entered into at all. There is no
adverse report against the petitioner, as
apparent from the records.
9. That apart, the potentiality of the
petitioner cannot merely be determined by the
current age of the petitioner (which has also not
been considered) but one also has to take into
account the actual and tangible chance of the
petitioner-convict reorganizing such a crime, if
he is reintegrated in mainstream society.
10. It is well-settled that in modern
jurisprudence, one of the cardinal
considerations of punishment is reformation
and not retribution. The said aspect has been
altogether negated by the impugned refusal.
5
11. Moreover, the respondent-authorities
were required to consider the opinion of the
convicting court in terms of Section 432(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, as held in
Gopal Sarkar (supra).
12. Also, since it was already held in Biresh
Poddar (supra) that the composition of the
Board, which refused the petitioner's request for
remission, was faulty, the said Board is also
required to be reconstituted for taking a proper
decision.
13. In such view of the matter, W.P.A. No.
24276 of 2023 is disposed of by directing the
respondent-authorities to reconstitute properly
and in accordance with law a State Sentence
Review Board within one month from date.
14. Immediately thereafter, the case of the
petitioner shall be reconsidered on the basis of
the request already made by the petitioner
along with other similarly-placed convicts, if
their requests are still pending.
15. Such consideration shall be in the light of
the above observations as well as the yardsticks
stipulated in Gopal Sarkar vs. State of West
Bengal, reported at AIR Online 2022 Cal 2520.
16. Such reconsideration shall be conducted
by the newly-constituted State Sentence Review
Board within one month from the date of its
reconstitution in terms of the above direction.
17. It is made clear that the case of the
petitioner for premature release has not been
considered by this court on merits but the
SSRB has to keep in mind the relevant
yardsticks, as indicated above, which are
mandatorily required to be adverted to by the
Board before taking a decision on the
petitioner's request for premature release.
18. In view of the unlawful constitution of the
SSRB, which passed the impugned order of
refusal of the petitioner's prayer for remission,
the said order is deemed to be rendered null
and void.
19. There will be no order as to costs.
20. Urgent photostat certified copies of this
order, if applied for, be made available to the
parties upon compliance of all necessary
formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
