Life
Convict Laxman Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal & ANR [2000] INSC 462 (1
September 2000)
S. Rajendra
Babu, J. & Shivaraj V. Patil, J.
J U D
G M E N T RAJENDRA BABU, J.:
L.I.T.J
This writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeks for the
release of the petitioner who is undergoing imprisonment for life after having
been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C.. The claim
of the petitioner is that he has undergone the following period of actual
sentence and earned remissions :- YEAR MONTHS DAYS (a) From 25.6.1982 To
1.5.2000 including under trial period confinement 17 10 6 (b) Remissions earned
or Govt. Remissions granted upto 31.12.1999 5 8 29 (c) Total sentence including
remissions 23 7 5 The petitioner also claims that under Section 61(1) of the
West Bengal Correctional Services Act XXXII of 1992, which on Presidential
assent being given came to force with effect from April 14, 2000, he is
entitled to be released inasmuch as he had served the sentence and earned
remissions as detailed above and was entitled to be released as on September
27, 1996. The details are set forth hereunder :- YEAR MONTHS DAYS (i) Length of
life imprisonment under the definition of punishment vide explanation is :
20 0 0
(ii) Deduct the period of remission earned or granted under section 58 or
section 59 5 8 29 14 3 1 (iii) Deduct the period of set off under section 428, CrPC
1973 0 2 8 (iv) Total amount of actual sentence the petitioner herein was
liable to undergo 14 0 24 DAYS MONTHS YEAR v) Sentence of the petitioner
started from the date of his sentence on 3.9.1982 3 9 1982 (vi) Add the amount
actual sentence to be undergone from item (iii) above 24 0 14 (vii) Date of
Release on which the Superintendent of jail was liable to release the
petitioner rule 771 now under section 61(1) read with Rule 571 in chapter XIII
West Bengal Jail Code.
27
that is, 27th September, 1996 9 1996 After examining the legal position as to
the nature of the powers arising under Section 432 Cr.P.C. read with Article 161 of the Constitution
and the relevant rules relating to remission of
sentences, it is observed in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh, 1976
(3) SCC 470, as under :- (1) That a sentence of imprisonment for life does not
automatically expire at the end of 20 years including the remissions, because
the Administrative Rules framed under the various Jail Manuals or under the Prison
Act cannot supersede the statutory provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
A
sentence of imprisonment for life means a sentence for the entire life of the
prisoner unless the appropriate Government chooses to exercise its discretion
to remit either the whole or a part of the sentence under Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898;
(2)
That the appropriate Government has the undoubted discretion to remit or refuse
to remit the sentence and where it refuses to remit the sentence no writ can be
issued directing the State Government to release the prisoner.
In Naib
Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 (2) SCC 454, it was noticed that a distinction
between imprisonment for life and imprisonment
for a term has been maintained in the Indian Penal Code in several
of its provisions and moreover, whenever an offender is punishable with
imprisonment for life he is not punishable with imprisonment which may be of
either description within the meaning of Section 60 I.P.C. and therefore, we
cannot come to the conclusion that the court, by itself, could release the
convict automatically before the full life term is served. This aspect was
highlighted in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1961 (3)
SCR 440, wherein it was held that sentence for imprisonment for life ordinarily
means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted
persons natural life; that a convict undergoing such sentence may earn remissions
of his part of sentence under the Prison Rules but such remissions in the
absence of an order of an appropriate Government remitting the entire balance
of his sentence under this Section does not entitle the convict to be released
automatically before the full life term is served. It was observed that though
under the relevant rules a sentence for imprisonment for life is equated with
the definite period of 20 years, there is no indefeasible right of such
prisoner to be unconditionally released on the expiry of such particular term,
including remissions and that is only for the purpose of working out the
remissions that the said sentence is equated with definite period and not for
any other purpose.
In
view of this legal position explained by this Court it may not help the
petitioner even on the construction placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on Section 61(1) of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act XXXII
of 1992 with reference to explanation thereto that for the purpose of
calculation of the total period of imprisonment under this Section the period
of imprisonment for life shall be taken to be equivalent to the period of
imprisonment for 20 years. Therefore, solely on the basis of completion of a
term in jail serving imprisonment and remissions earned under the relevant
rules or law will not entitle an automatic release, but the appropriate
Government must pass a separate order remitting the un-expired portion of the
sentence.
If
what we have stated above is the correct position in law then what arises for
consideration in this case is whether there has been due consideration of the
case of the petitioner by the Government. On an earlier occasion when the
matter had come up before this Court an order dated February 15, 2000 had been made directing the Government to re-consider the
cases for premature release of all life convicts who had approached the Court
earlier. Thereafter, the Government constituted a Review Committee consisting
of the following members to examine the matter and make a report thereof to the
Court :- 1) Home Secretary Chairman 2) Judicial Secretary Convenor 3) I.G. of
Prisons, West Bengal Member 4) Secretary Home (Jails) Department Member 5) D.G.
& I.G. of Police, West Bengal Member 6) Commissioner of Police, Calcutta
Member 7) Chief Probation Officer Member This Court also issued certain
guidelines as to the basis on which a convict can be released prematurely and they are as under :-
1.
Whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the society
at large.
2.
Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining of this convict anymore.
3.
Whether there is any chance of future reoccurrence of committing crime.
4.
Whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime.
5.
Socio Economic condition of the convicts family.
In the
present case, the report of the jail authorities is in favour of the
petitioner. However, the Review Committee constituted by the Government recommended to reject the claim of premature release of the
petitioner for the following reasons :-
1.
That the police report has revealed that the two witnesses who had deposed
before the trial court and the people of the locality are all apprehensive of
acute breach of peace in the locality in case of premature release of the
petitioner;
2.
That the petitioner is a person of about 43 years and hence he has the
potential of committing crime; and
3.
That the incident in relation to which the crime had occurred was the sequel of
the political feud affecting the society at large. If we look at the reasons
given by the Government, we are afraid that the same are palpably irrelevant or
devoid of substance. Firstly, the views of the witnesses who had been examined
in the case or the persons in the locality cannot determine whether the
petitioner would be a danger if prematurely released because the persons in the
locality and the witnesses may still live in the past and their memories are
being relied upon without reference to the present and the report of the jail
authorities to the effect that the petitioner has reformed himself to a large
extent. Secondly, by reason of ones age one cannot say whether the convict has
still potentiality of committing the crime or not, but it depends on his
attitude to matters, which is not being taken note of by the Government.
Lastly, the suggestion that the incident is not an individual act of crime but
a sequel of the political feud affecting society at large, whether his
political views have been changed or still carries the same so as to commit
crime has not been examined by the Government. could On the basis of
the grounds stated above the Government not have rejected the claim made by
the petitioner. In the circumstances, we quash the order made by the Government
and remit the matter to it again to examine the case of the petitioner in the
light of what has been stated by this Court earlier and our comments made in
this order as to the grounds upon which the Government refused to act on the
report of the jail authorities and also to take note of the change in the law
by enacting the West Bengal Correctional Services Act XXXII of 1992 and to
decide the matter afresh within a period of three months from today. The writ
petition is allowed accordingly. After issuing rule the same is made absolute.
Back
