Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 323 OF 2022
JASWANT SINGH & ORS. .... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
& ANR. .... RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The petitioners, who are the convicts and undergoing the sentence of
life imprisonment in view of the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by this
Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1348-49 of 2015, confirming the judgement and
order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at
Bilaspur, in Criminal Appeal No. 933/2010 (arising out of Sessions
Case No. 16/2006), have invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction commanding
1
the respondents for presenting the case of the petitioners to the
sentencing Court for fresh consideration.
2. The present petitioners along with other co-accused having been
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) were 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 Kartikram and Puneet using deadly weapons
like sword, axe, wooden stick etc.
3. The petitioner no.1 Jaswant Singh, aged about 63 years; petitioner
no.2 Ajay, aged about 43 years and petitioner no.3 Naresh, aged about
57 years on their undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for about
16 years without remission (with remission about 21 years of
imprisonment) had submitted their respective applications under
Section 432(2) of Cr.PC to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg
seeking their premature release. The Jail Superintendent sought an
opinion of the concerned Sessions Court which had convicted the
petitioners. The Special Judge, Durg, Chhattisgarh vide the letters
2
dated 2.7.2021, 10.8.2021 and 1.10.2021 respectively gave his
opinion stating inter alia that in view of the facts and circumstances of
the case, it was not appropriate to allow remission of the remaining
sentence of the said petitioners.
4. The Law Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, also vide the note
dated 27.11.2021 gave an opinion that in view of the opinion given by
the presiding Judge of the Sentencing Court, the petitioner no. 1 and 3
ought not to be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 433-A
Cr.PC. Thereafter, the Director General, Jail and Correctional Services
Chhattisgarh on 21.02.2022 referred the case of the petitioner no.2 to
the Home Department, Government of Chhattisgarh and on
02.03.2022, addressed a letter to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Jail
Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, for again moving the file of
the petitioner no.1 and 3 for remission along with other convicts. On
22.3.2022, the Law Department, Government of Chhattisgarh once
again gave its opinion that since the presiding Judge of the Sentencing
Court had not given positive opinion, the petitioner no.1 and 3 should
not be released on remission. The Director General, Jail and
Correctional Services, therefore, rejected the applications of the
petitioner no. 1 and 3 for their release on remission. It appears that the
3
application of the respondent no.2 remained pending for consideration
before the Home Department, Government of Chhattisgarh.
5. In the meantime, one of the co-accused Ram Chander, who was also
convicted along with the present petitioners in the said case, had
preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition (Criminal) No.49/2022, in
which this Court vide order dated 22.4.2022 directed the respondents
to reconsider the case of the said petitioner and directed the Special
Judge to provide an opinion afresh accompanied by adequate
reasoning after taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down
1
in Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India . The Special Judge (Atrocities
Act Durg), therefore, considering the guidelines given by this Court in
Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India (supra) opined inter alia that the
sentence of the prisoner Ram Chander (co-accused) could be set-
aside and accordingly recommended to remit his sentence.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and carefully
considered the judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ
Petition (Criminal) No.49/2022 filed by the co-accused Ram Chander.
In the said judgment, the Coordinate Bench has considered in detail
1
(2002) 2 SCC 595
4
the requirement of the factors laid down in case of Laxman Naskar
vs. Union of India (supra) , 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 in the said judgement,
after considering the earlier judgements of this Court, more particularly
of the Constitution Bench in case of Union of India vs. Sriharan @
2
Murugan and in case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India (supra)
observed as under: -
“20. In Sriharan (supra), the Court observed that the opinion
of the presiding judge shines a light on the nature of the
crime that has been committed, the record of the convict,
their background and other relevant factors. Crucially, the
Court observed that the opinion of the presiding judge would
enable the government to take the ‘right’ decision as to
whether or not the sentence should be remitted. Hence, it
cannot be said that the opinion of the presiding judge is only
a relevant factor, which does not have any determinative
effect on the application for remission. The purpose of the
procedural safeguard under Section 432 (2) of the CrPC
would stand defeated if the opinion of the presiding judge
becomes just another factor that may be taken into
consideration by the government while deciding the
application for remission. It is possible then that the
procedure under Section 432 (2) would become a mere
formality.
21. However, this is not to say that the appropriate
government should mechanically follow the opinion of the
presiding judge. If the opinion of the presiding judge does
not comply with the requirements of Section 432 (2) or if the
2
(2016) 7 SCC 1
5
judge does not consider the relevant factors for grant of
remission that have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v.
Union of India (supra), the government may request the
presiding judge to consider the matter afresh.
22. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that the
presiding judge took into account the factors which have
been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (supra).
These factors include assessing (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. In Laxman Naskar v. State
of West Bengal (supra) and State of Haryana v. Jagdish
(2010) 4 SCC 216 , this Court has reiterated that these
factors will be considered while deciding the application of a
convict for premature release.
23. In his opinion dated 21 July 2021 the Special Judge,
Durg referred to the crime for which the petitioner was
convicted and simply stated that in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case it would not be appropriate to
grant remission. The opinion is in the teeth of the provisions
of Section 432 (2) of the CrPC which require that the
presiding judge’s opinion must be accompanied by reasons.
Halsbury’s Laws of India (Administrative Law) notes that the
requirement to give reasons is satisfied if the concerned
authority has provided relevant reasons. Mechanical
reasons are not considered adequate. The following extract
is useful for our consideration: “[005.066] Adequacy of
reasons Sufficiency of reasons, in a particular case,
depends on the facts of each case. It is not necessary for
the authority to write out a judgement as a court of law does.
However, at least, an outline of process of reasoning must
be given. It may satisfy the requirement of giving reasons if
relevant reasons have been given for the order, though the
authority has not set out all the reasons or some of the
reasons which had been argued before the court have not
been expressly considered by the authority. A mere
repetition of the statutory language in the order will not make
the order a reasoned one. Mechanical and stereotype
reasons are not regarded as adequate. A speaking order is
one that speaks of the mind of the adjudicatory body which
passed the order. A reason such as ’the entire examination
6
of the year 1982 is cancelled’, cannot be regarded as
adequate because the statement does explain as to why the
examination has been cancelled; it only lays down the
punishment without stating the causes therefor.” (Halsbury's
Laws of India (Administrative Law) (Lexis Nexis, Online
Edition).
24. Thus, an opinion accompanied by inadequate reasoning
would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) of the
CrPC. Further, it will not serve the purpose for which the
exercise under Section 432 (2) is to be undertaken, which is
to enable the executive to make an informed decision taking
into consideration all the relevant factors.
25. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
petitioner’s application for remission should be re-
considered. We direct the Special Judge, Durg to provide an
opinion on the application afresh accompanied by adequate
reasoning that takes into consideration all the relevant
factors that govern the grant of remission as laid down in
Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (supra). The Special
Judge, Durg must provide his opinion within a month of the
date of the receipt of this order. We further direct the State
of Chhattisgarh to take a final decision on the petitioner’s
application for remission afresh within a month of receiving
the opinion of the Special Judge, Durg.”
7. 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.
7
8. In that view of the matter, it is held that the petitioners’ applications for
remission are required to be reconsidered by the respondent
authorities afresh. 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 (supra). After receiving the
opinion of the Special Judge Durg, the State of Chhattisgarh shall take
a final decision on the petitioners’ applications for remission afresh as
expeditiously as possible and not later than one month of receiving the
opinion of the Special Judge. The present writ petition stands allowed
in the above terms.
All pending applications, if any shall stand disposed of.
………………………. J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
…..................................J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]
NEW DELHI
13.01.2023
8