CAUSE TITLE:
Atbir Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
DATE OF ORDER:
29 April 2022
JUDGE(S):
The Hon’ble Justice Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari
The Hon’ble Justice Mr. Aniruddha Bose
PARTIES:
Appellant(s): Atbir
Respondent(s): State of NCT of Delhi
SUBJECT
The appellant served the sentence of imprisonment for the whole of his natural life after commuting of death sentence by the Hon’ble President of India. He appealed on being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Delhi, wherein his writ petition was dismissed against the order issued by the Director-General of Prisons, where his prayer to grant furlough was declined.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Indian Penal Code,1860
Section 302: Punishment for murder
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine.
Delhi Prison Rules, 2018
Rule 1223(1)
In order to be eligible to obtain furlough, the prisoner must show good conduct in the prison and should have earned rewards in the last 3 Annual good conduct report and continues to maintain good conduct.
OVERVIEW
- The appellant was charged with the offence under Section 302 of the IPC on the accusation that he caused the death of his step-mother, step-brother and step-sister by multiple knife-blows. The Lower Court convicted the appellant and awarded the sentence of death.
- The reference for the confirmation of death sentence and the criminal appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence were decided together by the High Court of Delhi. The appeal was dismissed and the death sentence was confirmed.
- Further a criminal appeal was filed by the appellant in the Supreme Court.It was decided by the Court that the case fell in ‘rarest of the rare category’, and confirmed the sentence of death. A curative petition filed by him was also dismissed.
- Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition under Article 72 of the Constitution of India invoking the powers of the Hon’ble President of India to grant pardon and to suspend, remit or commute the sentence. The Hon’ble President of India modified the sentence of death awarded to the appellant to imprisonment for life with the requirements that he would remain in prison for the whole of the remainder of his natural life without parole and there shall be no remission of the term of imprisonment.
ISSUE
- Whether the appellant was entitled to furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 despite bar over any remission in the term of imprisonment for the whole of his natural life?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The learned counsel for the appellant contended that furlough was an obvious consequence of a prisoner maintaining good conduct in prison; and could not be denied to the appellant only on the ground that he has to remain in prison for whole of the remainder of his natural life, which in any case he would serve.
- Thus, according to the learned counsel, if the appellant was maintaining good conduct in jail and fulfils eligibility conditions as provided under Rule 1223(I), he was entitled to be granted a furlough and the same could not be denied. It was also argued that taking away the right of the appellant to be granted furlough was contrary to the reformative approach and extension of incentives.
- The reference to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Chandra Kant Jha v. State of NCT of Delhi was made. It was submitted that reliance therein to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. V. Sriharan & Ors. [(2016) 7 SCC 1]was rather misplaced because the enunciations by the Court that “when a remission of the substantive sentence is granted under Section 432, then and then only giving credit to the earned remission can take place and not otherwise”could not mean that furlough could be availed by the appellant only if his case was considered for premature release.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- It was submitted that in comprehensive consideration of the applicable provisions of law and the enunciations by the Court, furlough is a reduction in the sentence of a prisoner which amounts to remission of sentence and the reduction was not permissible in this case, given of the order of the Hon’ble President of India. With reference to Rule 1223, it was submitted that furlough could be granted only when appellant had good conduct in prison and had earned rewards in the last 3 Annual good conduct reports and continued to maintain good conduct.
- There being no entitlement of Annual good conduct remission under Rule 1178 of the Rules of 2018, the appellant may not be admitted to furlough. The Counsel also referred to the observations of the Court in State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Narayan: [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 949]and submitted that a prisoner like appellant had no absolute legal right to claim furlough; and in the present case, where good conduct remission was not available, furlough would not be available to the appellant.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The eligibility requirement to obtain furlough was ‘3 Annual good conduct reports’ and not ‘3 Annual good conduct remissions’. The expression employed in Rule 1223(1)is that the prisoner ought to maintain ‘Good conduct in the prison and should have earned rewards in last 3 Annual good conduct report’ and further that he should continue ‘to maintain good conduct’. Even these expressions could not be read to mean that the prisoner ought to earn ‘good conduct remissions’. It cannot be said that earning rewards is equivalent to earning remissions.
- Even if the appellant had to remain in prison for the whole of the remainder of his life, the expectations from him of good conduct in jail would always remain; and the lawful consequences of good conduct, including that of furlough, could not be denied. Depriving of furlough would not only be counter-productive but would be inverse to the reformative approach ofthe Rules of 2018.
- The Court was of the opinion the appellant, was a person convicted of multiple murders. Therefore, the requirement of Rule 1225 of the Rules of 2018 came into operation. However, it could not be said that his case would never be considered for furlough. Whether he is to be given furlough on the parameters delineated therein or not was a matter to be examined by the authorities in accordance with the law.
CONCLUSION
The appeal by the appellant succeeded and was allowed.The impugned order passed by the High Court of Delhi and the order passed by the Director-General of Prisons were set aside.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
