CASE ANALYSIS – RAJO V. STATE OF BIHAR, 2023

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The petitioner was convicted on May 24, 2001, by the Sessions Court at Madhepura for his involvement in a triple homicide, which occurred during a village fair. The victims—two police dafadars and one chowkidar—were on official duty and lost their lives in a planned firing incident while they were waiting for food. The petitioner, along with three others, was found guilty of participating in this deliberate assault. Another accused, Baudha Mandal, who was allegedly the first to open fire, was killed during the course of the investigation or trial. Three other individuals accused in the same incident were acquitted.
2. The trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the petitioner and the three co-convicts. The High Court, on September 1, 2005, confirmed the conviction and sentence. The petitioner, owing to financial hardship and lack of legal guidance, did not pursue any further appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the conviction attained finality.
3. As per the affidavit filed by the State, the petitioner had completed 14 years of actual incarceration by July 19, 2013. By July 26, 2023, he had undergone more than 24 years of actual imprisonment. Taking into account earned remissions of approximately 4 years and 8 months, his total period of custody stands at 28 years, 8 months, and 21 days.
4. Following the mandatory 14 years of real incarceration and more than 20 years of remission, the petitioner filed for remission on April 14, 2021. The application was placed before the Remission Board on May 19, 2021. However, the request was declined, primarily based on negative recommendations from the Superintendent of Police, Purnea, and the Presiding Judge of the trial court. The rejection relied on Rule 529(iv)(b) of the Bihar Jail Manual, which bars early release in cases involving planned and organized murders.
5. A writ petition subsequently filed before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the rejection was dismissed for non-prosecution. The matter was again placed before the Remission Board on April 20, 2023, but met with the same fate, being rejected for identical reasons. Left with no alternative remedy, the petitioner has now approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

ISSUES OF THE CASE 

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to premature release or remission, given that he has been in custody for over 24 years without the grant of remission or parole.
2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application for premature release by the Remission Board, based on adverse opinions from the Presiding Judge and the Superintendent of Police (despite a favorable report from the Probation Officer), is legally justifiable and in accordance with the relevant remission policies, specifically Rule 529(iv)(b) of the Bihar Jail Manual.
3. What is the scope of the Supreme Court’s power under Article 32 of the Constitution to issue directions for the premature release of a convict in such circumstances?

JUDGEMENT 

The Court meticulously reiterated that the opinion of the Presiding Judge, as mandated by Section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), is not merely a relevant factor but a crucial safeguard in the process. This statutory provision outlines the procedure for the appropriate government to seek the judge’s opinion, along with reasons and a certified copy of the trial record, when considering an application for suspension or remission of a sentence. The Supreme Court underscored that this opinion should indeed guide the appropriate government’s decision on remission. However, a significant caution was issued against mechanical reliance on this opinion, especially if it is perfunctory, based solely on the judicial record, and fails to consider the convict’s post-conviction conduct and reformation. The Court noted that a report focusing predominantly on the crime and the circumstances leading to conviction, with little or no attention to the criminal’s journey since conviction and their progress, would not carry predominance. It highlighted that such a report offers only a “dated insight” and has “limited opportunity to consider the progress the convict has made.”

The judgment strongly stressed that the appropriate government must adopt a holistic view, considering all opinions received. This includes not only the judicial view of the Presiding Judge but also crucial inputs from other authorities such as the Probation Officer and Jail authorities, who are in a far better position to discuss the offender’s behavior and reformation after being convicted. The Court explicitly referred to the five guiding factors laid down in Laxman Naskar v. State of W.B. (2000) 2 SCC 595, which must be assessed while considering remission: Whether the offense was an individual act of crime or affected society at large. The probability of the crime being repeated by the convict. The potential of the convict to commit crimes in the future. Whether any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison for further incarceration. The convict’s family’s socioeconomic status. The Court also found that the Presiding Judges’ opinions in this case were inadequate as they did not explicitly consider the vital factors and merely reiterated the facts of the crime and the severity of the offense. Such opinions, lacking reasons and a comprehensive assessment, were deemed insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 432(2) CrPC.

The Supreme Court emphatically highlighted that the ultimate aim and goal of imprisonment, in all the crimes, is reformative, provided the offender undergoes a sufficiently long period of punishment. It underscored that a stereotypical approach in denying remission, which automatically  results in premature release, defeats the entire idea of limiting incarceration for long periods. Such a practice could lead to a profound sense of despair and frustration among inmates who might consider themselves reformed but continue to be condemned to prison indefinitely. The Court also suggested that to aid the appropriate government in making an informed decision, a report contemporaneously prepared by a qualified psychologist after interacting with the convict applying for premature release would be highly beneficial which would be beneficial in understanding of convict’s mental state. 

The Court reaffirmed the established principle that the remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction is generally applicable for the consideration of premature release. However, it also acknowledged and applied the important precedent from State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216, which stipulates that if a more liberal policy exists on the date of consideration for premature release, the convict should be given the benefit of that more liberal policy. In the specific context of this case, the pre-2002 policy was applicable on the date of the petitioner’s conviction (May 24, 2001), which considered life imprisonment as 20 years for the purpose of remission and release.

The Court reiterated that while the power to grant remission is an executive function (traceable to Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution and Section 432 CrPC), this inherently discretionary power must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and non-arbitrarily. The absence of such a fair and reasonable exercise would compel judicial review, and in appropriate cases, the matter would be remitted for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that if the Presiding Judge’s view is mechanically followed, without proper application of mind to all relevant factors, the executive’s discretion in executing a sentence would be “denuded of its content,” potentially subverting the very concept of remission as an incentive for reformation.

REASONING 

The Superintendent of Police’s negative report from the second round, which was completely different from the one from the first, is one example. The Court decided that it was permissible to raise a concern in this situation without casting doubt on its validity or challenging it on its merits. In every instance, the relevant government must be aware of any unconscious biases about the crime that the police and the investigative agency may be bringing up. This is especially important in a case like this one, where the victims who were killed were actually police officers.

These biases cannot be given decisive weight, but they may influence the report. By doing this, the relevant authorities may be diverted from the factors that should be taken into account for an early release and instead concentrate nearly solely on facts that call for a retaliatory reaction.
It is important to note that no ineligibility requirements, much less one comparable to Rule 529(iv)(b) of the 2002 policy—which the Remission Board cited in rejecting the petitioner’s application on April 20, 2023—are included in the previous pre-2002 policy.

Before concluding, this court expressed its sincere gratitude for the invaluable support that Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, who represented the petitioner, and Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, who represented the State, had given.

REFERENCES 

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13378277/

Written by Ishika Sharma an Intern under Legal Vidhiya .

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.