Delhi HC Grants Relief to Life Convict Seeking Premature Release in Rape-Murder of Minor Girl
The Delhi High Court has recently directed the Sentence Review Board (SRB) to reconsider the plea of a life convict seeking premature release in connection with the rape and murder of an 8-year-old girl.
A bench led by Justice Girish Kathpalia set aside the earlier order passed by the SRB rejecting his plea for release.
Taking note of the SRB's decision, the judge observed, "It further appears that the only factor which operated in the mind of the members of the SRB was the gruesome nature of the crime committed by the petitioner."
He added, “Of course, the crime committed by the petitioner was gruesome.” But for that very reason, the convict had been awarded life imprisonment and has already served 24 years in jail.
Highlighting that the purpose of punishment is the reformation of the criminal and not endless, meaningless incarceration, the High Court remarked:
"The punishment for a crime also must have its limits, lest the punishment in itself becomes wrong, being non-productive. Purpose of punishment has to be reformation of the criminal and not an endless, meaningless incarceration. Even the policy of 2004 has various parameters on which the case of a convict has to be tested. From the impugned decision, it is not possible to make out as to whether those parameters were applied or not."
The court was hearing a petition filed by Sagir, who challenged the findings of the Sentence Review Board meetings held on 30.08.2024 and 18.09.2024, where his request for premature release was turned down. He also sought a mandamus for his immediate release.
Appearing for the convict, Advocate Gunjan Sinha Jain argued that the SRB’s decision was unreasoned, mechanical, and failed to consider relevant factors under the 2004 policy.
On the other hand, the prosecution assured the court that if the impugned decision is set aside, the petitioner’s case would be considered afresh in the next SRB meeting, scheduled within four months.
Considering the submissions of all parties, the court ordered,“In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 accepting the recommendations of meetings dated 30.08.2024 and 18.09.2024 of SRB qua the petitioner is set aside, and respondent no.1 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner by convening an SRB meeting within four months from today.”
For Petitioner: Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Advocate
For Respondents: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State, with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocate with Insp. Robin Singh and SI Hari Ram
Case Title: SAGIR versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)