Patna High Court
Sujit Kumar @ Lathi Singh vs The State Of Bihar, Through The Chief ... on 12 August, 2024
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1224 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2004 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna
======================================================
Sujit Kumar @ Lathi Singh S/O Sri Chhotan Singh R/O Village- Lahsuna, Ps.
Masaurhi, Dist. Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The State Remission Board, through the Principal Secretary, Home Deptt.,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Joint Secretary-Cum-Director (Administration), Home Deptt. (Prison),
Bihar, Patna
4. The Secretary, Law Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna
5. The Inspector General, Jail and Reforms Services, Patna, Bihar
6. The Assistant Inspector General, Jail and Reforms Services, Patna, Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Soni Shrivastava, Advocate
Ms. Sarandha Suman, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Sharma, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-08-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu
Narayan Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State.
2. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the decision of the State Remission Board
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'/ 'Remission Board') taken
in its meeting held on 20.04.2023 (Annexure '7') (hereinafter
referred to as the 'impugned decision') whereby and whereunder
the request of the petitioner for his premature release has been
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1224 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024
2/5
rejected citing clause (iv) (kha) of the Notification No. 3106 dated
10.12.2002
.
Submission on behalf of the Petitioner
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the decision of the Board does not reflect application of judicious
mind as it would appear that the Board has vaguely referred the
reason for rejection giving an impression that the petitioner has
been convicted for committing murder of four persons with a pre-
meditated mind.
4. Learned counsel has taken this Court through the
findings of this Hon'ble Court recorded in paragraphs '48' to '50'
of the judgment in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 72 of 2008 and other
analogous matters. Referring to the findings in paragraph '50' of
the judgment, learned counsel submits that the only evidence
against the present petitioner was that he happened to be the
member of an unlawful assembly resorting to firing, guided by
mob mentality. It is submitted that there is no finding that this
petitioner had acted with pre-meditation of mind in the
commission of the offence.
5. It is further pointed out that all relevant reports which
were required by the Board for purpose of consideration of the
case of the petitioner for premature release, were found
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1224 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024
favourable. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already spent
more than 18 years in actual incarceration and more than 23 years
with remission.
Stand of the State
6. Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned AC to AG for
the State has at the outset submitted that the decision of the Board
does not contain a finding in tune with the judgment of the
Hon'ble Court. It is admitted at the Bar that there is no finding
against the petitioner that he had committed offence with pre-
meditation of mind.
7. Learned AC to AG for the State, therefore, submits
that in such circumstance, the matter may be remanded to the
Remission Board for fresh consideration.
Consideration
8. Having regard to the submissions noted hereinabove
and the materials on the record, this Court finds substance in the
submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Paragraphs '48'
to '50' of the judgment of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 72 of
2008 and other analogous matters are being reproduced hereunder
for a ready reference:-
"48. Taking into consideration the entire evidence since
the prosecution has duly established that 60-70 persons
came making firing causing death of four persons and
the death of four persons having been established by the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1224 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024
inquest report and the post mortem report, the place of
occurrence has been established by the witnesses and
the investigating officer and the occurrence at about the
time and days established by the evidence of P.Ws. 8, 10
and 11, who have named the appellants having taking
participation in the occurrence and have been identified.
The evidence of three witness who have supported the
prosecution case is in regarding the participation of the
appellants in the unlawful assembly resorting to firing
causing death of four persons and, hence, the
participation of the appellants has been established by
cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence.
49. I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to
establish the charges against the appellants under
Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
50. However, as the sentence of the appellants is
concerned, there is only evidence that the appellants
were members of the unlawful assembly resorting to
firing, guided by mob mentality and, hence, as per the
allegation and evidence it is not one of the rare of rarest
case for extreme punishment, hence, the end of justice
shall meet by converting the penalty of death to
imprisonment for life against the appellants and, hence,
with this modification in sentence the Criminal Appeals
are dismissed."
9. This Court finds that there is no finding of
commission of offence by the petitioner with pre-meditation of
mind, hence, in the opinion of this Court, the observations of the
Remission Board in its impugned decision is not based on any
material on the record. The observations being baseless, the
impugned decision is liable to be quashed and cancelled.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1224 of 2023 dt.12-08-2024
10. Accordingly, this Court quashes the impugned
decision of Board as regards this petitioner. The Board is directed
to consider the case of the petitioner afresh keeping in view the
discussions made hereinabove.
11. Such decision be taken within a period of two
months from the date of communication of a copy of this order.
The Board shall act with some urgency as this Court has been
informed that the petitioner has already spent more than 18 years
in actual incarceration and more than 23 years with remission.
12. This writ application stands allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
SUSHMA2/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 13.08.2024
Transmission Date 13.08.2024
