He seeks appropriate direction to the state government, to prematurely release him, having been in custody (i.e., actual imprisonment) for over 26 years, and served a sentence of over 35 years (including over 8 years of remission earned). (Para 1)
Prosecution case was that he had her walk along the railway line and at a desolate place, allegedly raped and robbed her of the ornaments she was wearing, before laying her on the tracks to be runover by a passing train. (Para 2)
The High Court[By judgment dated 06.01.1998 passed by the Kerala High Court in Crl. A. No. 511/1996.] reversed the acquittal, and convicted the petitioner by its judgment dated 06.01.1998 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 376 and 392 IPC. The High Court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, and rigorous imprisonment of 7 years on each count of Section 376 and 392 IPC, which were to run concurrently. This court[By judgment dated 27.04.2000 passed by this Court in Crl. A. No. 656/1998.], however, on 27.04.2000 set aside the conviction under Section 376 IPC and confirmed the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 392 IPC only. (Para 3)
The petitioner completed 1 year 5 months and 10 days of custody as an undertrial, before his acquittal by the trial court. After his conviction by the High Court, he surrendered to the sentence on 28.01.1998, and remained in custody thereafter. On 13.08.2010, he completed 14 years of actual imprisonment (including the time spent as an undertrial). And on 13.08.2016, he completed 20 years of actual imprisonment. The custody certificate produced in his writ petition, confirms that he completed actual imprisonment of 25 years 9 months and 26 days on 07.06.2022, (i.e., he completed 25 years actual imprisonment on 13.08.2021). However, in terms of the state’s counter affidavit, as on 31.01.2023, he completed 25 years 10 months 3 days of actual imprisonment and has earned 8 years 4 months and 16 days in remission. Regardless of the arithmetical inconsistencies, it is not contested that he has completed over 26 years of actual imprisonment. (Para 4)
To issue a policy directive, or guidelines, over and above the Act and Rules framed (where the latter forms part and parcel of the former), and undermine what they encapsulate, cannot be countenanced. Blanket exclusion of certain offences, from the scope of grant of remission, especially by way of an executive policy, is not only arbitrary, but turns the ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its head. (Para 28)
In the petitioner’s case, the 1958 Rules are clear – a life sentence, is deemed to be 20 years of incarceration. After this, the prisoner is entitled to premature release[See also this court’s order dated 11.10.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 276-278/2010.].The guidelines issued by the NHRC pointed out to us by the counsel for the petitioner, are also relevant to consider – that of mandating release, after serving 25 years as sentence (even in heinous crimes). At this juncture, redirecting the petitioner who has already undergone over 26 years of incarceration (and over 35 years of punishment with remission), before us to undergo, yet again, consideration before the Advisory Board, and thereafter, the state government for premature release – would be a cruel outcome, like being granted only a salve to fight a raging fire, in the name of procedure. The grand vision of the rule of law and the idea of fairness is then swept away, at the altar of procedure – which this court has repeatedly held to be a ‘handmaiden of justice’. (Para 34)
Rule 376 of the 2014 Rules prescribes that prisoners shall be granted remission for keeping peace and good behaviour in jail. As per the records produced by the State, the petitioner has earned over 8 years of remission, thus demonstrating his good conduct in jail. The discussions in the minutes of the meetings of the Jail Advisory Board are also positive and find that he is hardworking, disciplined, and a reformed inmate. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this court is of the opinion, that it would be appropriate to direct the release of the petitioner, with immediate effect. It is ordered accordingly. (Para 35)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 288 SC
Joseph Vs. State Of Kerala And Others
Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 520 of 2022-Decided on 21-09-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-288-SC.pdf
