Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938: s.2 – Pre-mature release – Entitlement – Criteria – Held: Length of sentence or gravity of the original crime can’t be the sole basis for refusing pre-mature release – First-time offenders ought to be liberally accorded a chance – Any assessment regarding predilection to commit crime after release must be based on antecedents as well as conduct of the prisoners in jail and not on his age or apprehensions of the victims and witnesses – In the present case three-factor evaluation of (i) antecedents (ii) conduct during incarceration and (iii) likelihood to abstain from crime have been given a complete go-by – The prisoners are directed to be released on probation in terms of s.2, subject to their continuing good conduct – The State shall be at liberty to impose conditions – The order of pre-mature release can be recalled in the event of any future misconduct or breach.
Sentence/Sentencing:
Reformative principles – A civilised society cannot be achieved only through punitive attitude and vindictiveness – First time offenders ought to be accorded chance to repent their past and look-forward to a bright future.
Disposing of the Special Leave Petitions, the Court HELD: 1. Whilst it is true that society has a right to lead a peaceful and fearless life, without free-roaming criminals creating havoc in the lives of ordinary peace-loving citizens. But equally strong is the foundation of reformative theory which propounds that a civilised society cannot be achieved only through punitive attitudes and vindictiveness; and that instead public harmony, brotherhood and mutual acceptability ought to be fostered. Thus, first-time offenders ought to be liberally accorded a chance to repent their past and look-forward to a bright future. [Para 13][28-D-E]
Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107 : [1981] 1 SCR 1196 – relied on.
2. The Constitution of India through Articles 72 and 161, embody these reformative principles by allowing the President of India and the Governor of a State to suspend, remit or commute sentences of convicts. Further, Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 streamlines such powers by laying down procedure and pre-conditions for release. The only embargo under Section 433-A of CrPC is against the release of persons sentenced to life imprisonment till they have served at least fourteen years of their actual sentence. The UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 also lays down the principles upon which such decisions to release on probation are required to be taken. [Paras 14 and 15][28-F-G]
3. It is no doubt trite law that no convict can claim remission as a matter of right. However, in the present case, the circumstances are different. What had been sought and directed by this Court through repeated orders was not premature release itself, but due application of mind and a reasoned decision by executive authorities in terms of existing provisions regarding premature release. Once a law has been made by the appropriate legislature, then it is not open for executive authorities to surreptitiously subvert its mandate. Where the authorities are found to have failed to discharge their statutory obligations despite judicial directions, it would then not be inappropriate for a Constitutional Court while exercising its powers of judicial review to assume such task onto itself and direct compliance through a writ of mandamus. [Para 16][29-DF] Swamy Sahraddanada v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 : [2008] 11 SCR 93 – relied on.
4. In the present case, the three-factor evaluation of (i) antecedents (ii) conduct during incarceration and (iii) likelihood to abstain from crime, under Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, have been given a complete go-by. These refusals are not based on facts or evidence, and are vague, cursory, and merely unsubstantiated opinions of State authorities. [Para 17][29-G; 30-A]
5. Length of the sentence or the gravity of the original crime can’t be the sole basis for refusing premature release. Any assessment regarding predilection to commit crime upon release must be based on antecedents as well as conduct of the prisoner while in jail, and not merely on his age or apprehensions of the victims and witnesses. As per the State’s own affidavit, the conduct of both petitioners has been more than satisfactory. They have no material criminal antecedents, and have served almost 16 years in jail (22 years including remission). Although being about 54 and 43 years old, they still have substantial years of life remaining, but that doesn’t prove that they retain a propensity for committing offences. The respondent-State’s repeated and circuitous reliance on age does nothing but defeat the purpose of remission and probation, despite the petitioners having met all statutory requirements for premature release. [Para 18][31-B-C]
Zahid Hussain v. State of West Bengal (2001) 3 SCC
750 : [2001] 2 SCR 442 ; Shor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) SCC OnLine SC 626 ; Munna v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Order dated 21.08.2020 in WP (Crl) 4 of 2020) – relied on.
6. In view of the offence of the Appellant and given their age, their case ought to be viewed through a prism of positivity. They retain the ability to re-integrate with society and can spend many years leading a peaceful, disciplined, and normal human life. Such a hopeful expectation is further concritised by their conduct in jail. [Para 20][31-B-C]
7. In the present case, considering how the petitioners have served nearly two decades of incarceration and have thus suffered the consequences of their actions; a balance between individual and societal welfare can be struck by granting the petitioners conditional premature release, subject to their continuing good conduct. This would both ensure that liberty of the petitioners is not curtailed, nor that there is any increased threat to society. Suffice to say that this order is not irreversible and can always be recalled in the event of any future misconduct or breach by the petitioners. The petitioners be released on probation in terms of Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938. The respondent-State shall be at liberty to impose conditions as it may deem fit to balance public safety with individual liberty. [Paras 21 and 22][31-E-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.