Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has asked the state remission boards not to entirely rely either on the presiding judge, or the police report prepared in dealing with premature release of life term convicts as it may result in their prolonged incarceration, defeating the very purpose of beneficial provision.

A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Prashant Kumar Mishra asked the authorities not to adopt a “stereotypical” approach on remission applications.

The court's judgement came on a writ petition by Rajo, who was serving life term for 24 years, without remission or parole.

The bench pointed out the reason for rejection of his applications twice was the adverse report by the presiding judge in the first round, which was perfunctorily relied upon and reiterated in the report submitted by the then presiding judge in the second round as well. 

“Both the reports submitted by the presiding judges (at the relevant time), demonstrate a casual opinion, based solely on the judicial record which presumably consisted of the finding of guilt, by the trial court and High Court," the bench said.

The court directed remission board (headed by Home Secretary) to consider his plea afresh considering the reports of the police and other authorities, the post-prison record of the petitioner, the remissions earned (including that which is earned for good conduct) his age, health condition, family circumstances, and his potential for social engagement, in a positive manner. It also directed the presiding judge to give his opinion by giving adequate reason.

"With the benefit of this new report, the board may reconsider the application – without entirely or solely relying on it, but treating it as valuable (maybe weighty) advice that is based on the judicial record," the bench said.

Given the long period of incarceration already suffered by the writ petitioner and his age, the remission board should endeavour to consider the application at the earliest and render its decision, preferably within three months from the date of this judgement, the bench said.

The petitioner (aged 40, at the time), with three other co-accused persons, was convicted on May  24, 2001 for the murder of three persons – two of which were police personnel and the third a chowkidar, who were all on duty during a village mela at Madhepura – by indiscriminate firing, while they were waiting to be served food. 

Case Title: Raj @ Rajwa @ State of Bihar and Ors

Click here to read Judgment