Hon’ble Supreme Court while directing the release of two convicts on probation said that the length of a sentence or the graveness of the original crime can not form the basis of denial of an earlier release. The Hon'ble bench of three Judges led by Hon’ble Justice NV Ramana observed that any appraisal regarding productivity to commit a crime upon release must be based on antecedents and also the behavior of the prisoner while in prison irrespective of his age or opinion of the victims and witnesses. 

For committing the offense of kidnapping for ransom Vickky and Satish have been serving life imprisonment. Satish's plea was dismissed on the following grounds: 

  • The crime is reprehensible, 
  • Petitioner is about 53-54 years old and can repeat crime,
  • The informant has serious apprehension against his release, 
  • Governmental authorities have adverse opinions upon his release and its hostile effects on society. 

While on the ground of Vickky’s age of 43 years, his health conditions and opinion of the informant, and the nature of the crime, his plea was rejected. The bench comprising Hon’ble Justices NV Ramana, Suryakant, and Hrishikesh Roy rejected the taking note of these serious grounds and stated the three factors assessment of-

  • Antecedents, 
  • Behavior during incarceration and 

  • Likelihood to refrain from crime, under section 2 of UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, has been given a complete goby. 

Further, the Apex Court said: - "It would be gainsaid that 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 a crime upon release must be based on antecedents as well as the 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 offenses. 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.

The bench also gave reference to a recent judgment in Shor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Munna v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Taking note of their behavior in prison, the bench stated that it is extremely unlikely that they would not commit any act which could shatter or shame familial dreams. 

It said: - “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 the liberty of the petitioners is not curtailed, nor that there is an 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.”

Directing their release, the bench of Hon’ble Justices emphasized the reformation and said:

“Whilst it is undoubtedly 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 a reformative theory which propounds that a civilized 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." 

The Hon'ble Court highlighted that the Constitution of India through Articles 72 and 161, embodies 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 procedures and preconditions for release. The only embargo under Section 433­A of CrPC is against the release of persons sentenced to life imprisonment until they have served at least fourteen years of their actual sentence.

-This news is reported by Urvi Yadav