Grant Of Remission - Presiding Judge Should Give Adequate Reasons While Giving Opinion Under Section 432(2) CrPC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi held that while giving opinion regarding grant of remission under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. the Presiding Judge needs to give reasons with regard to the factors to be taken into consideration as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India.Facts of the Criminal Writ Petition in Brief The petitioners are convicts and undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in view of the order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. They, along with other co-accused, were charged for the offences under Section 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Corruption Act). They were all tried and found guilty for the said offences by the Special Judge (SC, ST), Durg, in Special Case No. 16/2006, were sentenced to life imprisonment. It was alleged against them that all the accused, 8 in number, had constituted an unlawful assembly and had killed 2 people using deadly weapons like sword, axe, wooden stick etc. The petitioners have invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents for presenting the case of the petitioners to the sentencing Court for fresh consideration. String of Rejections without reasoned orders In the present case, the petitioners subsequent applications for remission were rejected by the concerned authorities time and again without any reasoned orders. They had undergone imprisonment for 16 years (21 years without remission) and had submitted their respective applications under Section 432(2) of Cr.PC to the Jail Superintendent seeking their premature release. The Jail Superintendent had sought an opinion of the concerned Sessions Court which had convicted the petitioners. The concerned Sessions Court had denied their request in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Law Department, too, agreed with the Presiding Judge. The Director General, Jail and Correctional Services, also, rejected the applications of the petitioner. Meanwhile, one of the co-accused Ram Chander, had filed a writ petition earlier before the Supreme Court. That petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court which directing the Special Judge to provide an opinion afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning after taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down in the case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India. The Special Judge, therefore, considering the guidelines given by the top court in the said case recommended to remit his sentence. Judgment In the present case as well, the bench decided to pass the same order as passed in Ram Chander's petition."Since the case of the present petitioners is also similar to the case of the co-accused Ram Chander, in as much as the Presiding Officer’s opinions contained in the letters dated 02.07.2021, 10.08.2021 and 01.10.2021 do not contain reasons with regard to the factors to be taken into consideration as laid down in case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India (supra), we propose to pass similar order as passed in the case of co-accused Ram Chander.”After a discussion on the factors laid down in case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India, to be considered by the Presiding Judge while giving opinion under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C., and the powers of the appropriate Government to suspend or remit sentences under Sections 432 and 433-A of Cr.PC., the Court held, "Presiding Officer’s opinions contained in the letters dated 02.07.2021, 10.08.2021 and 01.10.2021 do not contain reasons with regard to the factors to be taken into consideration as laid down in case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India...Accordingly, we direct the Special Judge, Durg to provide an opinion on the applications of the petitioners afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning after taking into consideration the relevant factors that govern the grant of remission as laid down in Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India." Importantly, in the case of Laxman Naskar, the Supreme Court had held that the following factors were be considered by the presiding officer while exercising powers under 432(2): (i) whether the offence affects the society at large; (ii) the probability of the crime being repeated; (iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; (iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and (v) the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family. Case Title: JASWANT SINGH & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 323 OF 2022Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 33For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Danis Sher Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR Ms. Ritika Sethi, Adv.Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 433(2) -Grant of remission- Presiding Judge should give adequate reasons while giving opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC - Supreme...

Grant Of Remission - Presiding Judge Should Give Adequate Reasons While Giving Opinion Under Section 432(2) CrPC : Supreme Court

Anurag Tiwary

Tags