LI Network
Published on: 28 August 2023 at 16:21 IST
In a significant legal pronouncement, the Supreme Court of India, exercising its Criminal Original Jurisdiction, has issued a verdict that establishes fresh directives governing the early release of individuals serving life sentences.
The petitioner, Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal, who had been convicted of murder and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment, invoked Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to approach the Supreme Court.
The petitioner urged the state of Bihar to facilitate his early release, contending that he had been incarcerated for 24 years without any provision for remission or parole.
The division bench, comprised of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, rendered the judgment on August 25, 2023.
The ruling delves into the backdrop of the case, wherein the petitioner was found guilty of murdering three individuals, including police personnel, during a village festival.
The trial court pronounced a life imprisonment sentence, which was upheld by the High Court in 2005. Due to limitations in resources and awareness, the petitioner was unable to challenge the conviction earlier, resulting in its finality.
Key highlights of judgement:
Government’s Authority and Restrictions: The verdict emphasizes the government’s power to suspend or commute sentences. Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) sets a minimum of fourteen years of imprisonment before individuals serving life sentences can be released.
The judgment stresses responsible and rational exercise of this executive authority without arbitrariness.
Effect of Remission: The court clarifies that the state’s act of remission doesn’t overturn the judicial punishment. Instead, it grants the convict the benefit of a more lenient state pardon policy.
Comprehensive Approach to Remission: The judgment highlights that the opinion of the presiding judge in a remission application should not be the sole factor.
The government should consider various aspects like post-conviction behavior, age, health, family circumstances, and potential for reintegration.
Addressing Biases: The verdict acknowledges concerns about biases that might affect the perspectives of law enforcement and investigating agencies. It advises that biases should not be decisive and shouldn’t deter the government from considering relevant factors when reviewing early release applications.
The court asserts, “The act of remission of the State does not undo what has been done judicially. The punishment awarded through a judgment is not overruled but the convict gets the benefit of a liberalized policy of State pardon.”
As a consequential outcome of this landmark judgment, the Remission Board has been instructed to reassess the petitioner’s remission application, taking into account the principles articulated by the Supreme Court.
The case, titled “RAJO @ RAJWA @ RAJENDRA MANDAL VS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS,” sets a notable precedent by offering comprehensive guidance on evaluating factors for sentence remission under Section 432 CrPC.
