Case title: RAJO @ RAJWA @ RAJENDRA MANDAL v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Date of Order: AUGUST 25, 2023
Bench: Hon’ble Justice S. Ravinder Bhat & Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Parties: Appellant – Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal
Respondent – The State of Bihar & Ors.
SUBJECT:
In the said case the petitioner has filed a writ petition for his premature release from a life imprisonment verdict where he was found guilty in a triple murder case, for which the petitioner has already served for a period of 24 years. In this case the court asked the Remission Board to endeavor to consider the application at the earliest and render its decision, and itself granted the writ petition.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Section 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 302 - Punishment for murder - Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
Arms Act, 1959
Section 79 - Punishment for using arms, etc - (1) whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, [shall be punishable with imprisonment for life or death and shall also be liable to fine.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 432(1) – When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without Conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.
Section 432(2) – 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 had 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.
Section 433A – Restriction on powers of remission or Commutation in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.]
Constitution of India
Article 72 – Power of President to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases
(1) The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence
in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court Martial;
in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;
in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death
(2) Noting in sub clause (a) of Clause (1) shall affect the power to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death exercisable by the Governor of a State under any law for the time being in force
Article 161 - Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.
Remission Policy contained in the Bihar Jail Manual
Rule 529(iv) (b) - (iv) Ineligibility for premature release. The following category of convicted prisoners undergoing life sentence may not be considered eligible for premature release. – (b) Prisoners who have been convicted for organized murder in a premeditated manner and in an organized manner.
OVERVIEW:
The case is based on the petitioner's request for early release from a life sentence that has lasted more than 24 years due to his participation in a triple murder case. The complex balancing act between the principles of justice, rehabilitation, and societal concerns in the context of premature release is at the heart of the analysis. The court examines the discretionary powers held by executive authorities regarding remission, highlighting the importance of a thorough strategy that
takes post-conviction behaviour, health status, familial dynamics, and the likelihood of a successful reintegration into society into account. The case questions the overemphasis given to the presiding judge's opinion and calls for a more thorough analysis that incorporates input from a number of reliable authorities. It highlights the primary goal of imprisonment as being rehabilitative, underscoring the necessity of a fair assessment of remission requests. The court's order for a new assessment of the petitioner's case within a given timeframe emphasises the significance of including a range of expert perspectives in the decision-making process, highlighting the larger context of reformative justice and the person's change during incarceration.
ISSUES RAISED: Whether the petition filed by the petitioner should be granted a premature release after a verdict of life imprisonment for which he served for a span of 24 years?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:
1.Learned counsel Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
2.The counsel backed his arguments by stating several statues including the power vested with the president, the governor of the state, which allows them to grant pardons and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases further he stated several cases which established the authority of the executive as well as the preceding officer to look into the said matter of the premature release of the petitioner.
3.The counsel further stated that there has been an overemphasis on the presiding judge’s opinion and complete disregard of comments of other authorities, while arriving at its conclusion, would render the appropriate government’s decision on a remission application, unsustainable. And that the Remission Board has privileged the presiding judge’s opinion over the other authorities – like the Probation Officer, and Jail authorities, who are in a far better position to comment on his post-conviction reformation – offering a cautionary tale.
4.He focused on the ground that the ultimate aim and goal of the imprisonment even in the most serious crime, is reformative, after the offender undergoes a sufficiently long spell of punishment through imprisonment.
5.The counsel’s arguments also brought attention to a significant shift in the Superintendent of Police's opinion between two evaluations, highlighting a worrisome concern. They emphasize that in cases like this, latent biases could potentially influence law enforcement reports, particularly when the victims were fellow police personnel. This potential bias may divert the government's focus from essential factors for considering early release, leading to a retributive stance based on the nature of the crime rather than fair evaluation.
6.The counsel urged the court to imply the precedent principles in the said petition.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
1. Learned appeared, Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah on behalf of the respondent that is the
state.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
The judgement was given by Hon’ble Justice S. Ravinder Bhat. The writ petition filed by the petition brought forth, whether an individual serving more than 24 years in prison for three murders should be permitted early release. Finding the ideal balance between carrying out the appropriate punishment for the crime that was committed and offering a chance for rehabilitation during the lengthy period of incarceration is the main problem. The authority granted to authorities to decide on early release is examined in the analysis. It emphasises the necessity of just judgments that take into account a variety of factors, not just the judge's preference. These considerations include the offender's post-conviction behaviour, health, family situation, and reintegration potential. The analysis also raises questions about the wisdom of relying solely on the presiding judge's judgement and calls for a more thorough strategy that includes input from a variety of experts, including psychologists and probation officers. This strategy guarantees a more complete understanding of the person's development and growth during their time in
prison. Fundamentally, the idea of "reformative justice" is at work, stressing that the goal of imprisonment goes beyond punishment and centres on encouraging positive change in detainees. When assessing requests for early release, this principle acts as a compass. The judgment recognises the significance of statutory provisions like Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Constitutional Articles 72 and 161 within the legal framework. These guidelines offer a framework for comparing the possibility of personal growth to the necessity of punishment.
CONCLUSION:
This analysis revolves around the main issue at hand: Should someone who has served more than 24 years in prison for a triple homicide be given the opportunity for early release? The solution necessitates striking a careful balance between admitting the seriousness of the offence and allowing for change during these protracted years of imprisonment. As we examine this evaluation in greater detail, we learn how much influence early release decision-makers have. Fairness is strongly demanded, urging decisions that take into account a person's post-conviction behaviour, health, relationships with family, and likelihood of reintegration into society. It involves taking a broader perspective. This analysis warns against putting all of our faith in the judge's viewpoint. It promotes the concept of a collective viewpoint that incorporates knowledge from various professionals, including psychologists and probation officers. This broader viewpoint enables us to see a person's development over time in its entirety.
The idea of "reformative justice" shines through it all, reminding us that incarceration is not just about punishment but also about growth. It involves promoting change that can be advantageous to both the individual and society as a whole.
We navigate the legal system using legal principles like Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution. These guidelines assist us in balancing the potential for good change versus the need for punishment. In the end to conclude, this analysis demonstrates the value of professional judgement in reaching just conclusions. By accepting different viewpoints, we get closer to achieving justice that takes into account both the past and the possibility of a better future. This investigation reveals the complex interactions between justice, renewal, and societal needs, outlining a future course that speaks to our shared desires for a more equitable world.
