RAJO VS THE STATE OF BIHAR

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Petitioner was serving a sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner was convicted for murder of three persons – two of which were police personnel while they were on duty by indiscriminate firing and the petitioner was accused to be one among those who had planned this incident in a premeditated and planned manner.  

The petitioner was in custody for 24 years without grant of remission or parole. His conviction and sentence was granted by the High Court on 1.09.2005. Since he could not afford or had no awareness, the petitioner could not challenge the same in the Supreme Court. 

Following which an affidavit was filed by the respondent state, (dated 19.07.2023), for remission to be granted. This affidavit confirmed that the petitioner had completed 14 years of imprisonment and in fact, the petitioner had served 28 years, 8 months and 21 days of actual imprisonment as of 26.07.2023. 

His case was considered by the Remission Board on 19.05.2021, after an application was filed by him for the same (dated 14.04.2021), but the board rejected his application of premature release. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking relief, which was however dismissed for non -prosecution.

The petitioner’s proposal was then again put up in front of the Remission board, which was once again rejected, as per the negative opinions received from the superintendent of police, Purnea and presiding officer of the convicting court and as per the Rule 529(iv)(b) of the remission policy of the Bihar Jail Manual. 

ISSUES

• Should only the opinion of the presiding judge be taken into account for deciding whether to grant remission or not?
• What are the parameters on which the remission should be granted by the State?

JUDGEMENT

The Court observed that the Remission Board considered the opinion of only the presiding judge and not the other authorities present such as the Probation Officer or the Jail authorities which would render the appropriate government’s decision on a remission application, unsustainable and the government would not be accountable to the people in the jail. This said report was said to be baseless as it only reflects the facts and circumstances that led to the arrest of the convict, and it basically reflects the facts and circumstances when that incident occurred and not the views of the present scenario. Such a report cannot carry predominance as it attributes little or no attention towards the criminal. 

The Court listed down various factors which shall be taken into account while deciding whether to provide remission to a convict or not, while taking references to many past judgements. It is the State’s duty to take a holistic and detailed view of all opinions of all authorities present. The board should consider the post-conviction conduct, whether the convict has attained any educational qualification whilst in custody, volunteer services offered, job/work done, and overall development of the convict as a human being. It should also consider whether there remains any fruitful purpose of continued incarceration, the socio-economic conditions of the convict and review – the convict’s age, state of health, length of actual health, etc, apart from the pre-existing records such as the nature of the crime, accused’s role, etc.

The Court also pointed out that the presiding judge should not be the same presiding judge who already had the occasion to observe the convict earlier and thus form an opinion.  

The Court requested the appropriate state government to be careful of prejudices or biases while attending to such matters which may be cited by any such investigating agency such as the police, especially in a case such as this one, where the victims are police personnel themselves as these biases may damage the report and the facts relevant for consideration for premature release. 

The Court ordered the Remission Board to again hear the pleas of the petitioner and the adjudicating presiding judge to take all these factors into account while forming an opinion of the case, and then grant the award whether the petitioner should be granted remission or not, in no less than 3 months from this judgement. 

This article is written by Divya Kapoor, student at Lloyd Law College, intern at Legal Vidhiya. 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the 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 of a personal nature.

Admin