[Section 432 CrPC] Calcutta HC Allows Premature Release of Life Convicts In Absence of Presiding Judge's Opinion

The Calcutta High Court ordered the State Government to prematurely release two life convicts who had been in prison for 18 years.

The Single Judge bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri noted that under Section 432(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a presiding judge's view of the court where the conviction was upheld or confirmed is required. Since the same was absent in this case, the High Court perused the judgment itself and said,

“On perusal of the judgment passed by this Court in appeal, it is found that the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence. The petitioners are presently aged about 73 years and 84 years respectively. There is no reason in favour of the petitioners’ prayer for refusal of premature release. At the fag end of life they will get mental peace if they are allowed to lead the last few years of their life with their family members.”

The bench was hearing an application under section 482 of CrPC read with Article 227 of the Indian Constitution for the premature release of two life convicts.

The petitioners contended that they have been in custody since 2005, that petitioner No. 1 is approximately 74 years old and petitioner No. 2 is approximately 84 years old, and that they have no criminal history other than the present case.

On September 8, 2022, the petitioners represented themselves before the authorities for premature release. It was submitted that earlier their prayer was favourably considered by the board but they could not be released because they did not receive the opinion of the presiding judge before which they got convicted.

Advocate Moitra representing the petitioners submitted before the court that the petitioners are life convicts but they are in custody for more than 17 years. He relied upon the judgment of the apex court in Dharam Pal & Ors vs. the State of UP 2013 where in the court directed the life convict to be released since he had completed 14 years of imprisonment.

Justice Chaudhuri noted that the petitioner’s previous prayer for pre-mature release was considered by State Sentence Review Board but because of the lack of opinion of the presiding judge, they were not released.

The bench noted the scope and meaning of section 432(2) CrPC which states that “whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the Presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was held or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion, a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.”

Further, the bench noted that “a judicial scrutiny is contemplated in the provisions contained in Section 432(2) of the Code and sufficient reasons are required to be provided so that the appropriate government may not take any arbitrary decision about suspension or remission of sentence.”

Furthermore, the court stated that there was no justification for denying the petitioners' premature release because the entire case against them was supported only by circumstantial evidence and not releasing them will be a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Accordingly, the bench allowed the premature release of life convicts without the opinion of the presiding judge and stated that “at the fag end of life they will get mental peace if they are allowed to lead last few years of their life with their family members.”

Case Title: Anirudha Halder & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal

Statute: Section 482 of CrPC and  Article 227 of the Indian Constitution