Short-sentencing the convicts - Legality
and Legitimacy
Amit Jaiswal*
It is spirit and not the form of law
that keeps the justice alive-
Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States (1953-69)
The eleven persons convicted of
multiple murders and gang rape walked free out of Godhra sub-jail on 15th
day of August, 2022. These persons were convicted of heinous crimes of gang
raping a pregnant woman, brutally killing her 3 year old daughter by smashing
her head on the ground and 6 other persons on 3rd March, 2002. The story thereafter is of great struggle to
bring the guilty persons to books.
Supreme Court ordered CBI investigation into the crime and the
relentless struggle of the victim, with the help of human right groups and her
lawyers, bore fruit when on 21st January, 2008 CBI Special Court at
Mumbai convicted 11 persons for gang rape, murder and unlawful assembly and
sentenced them to life imprisonment. The
case continued its journey through appeals by the convicted persons which
finally culminated only in the year 2019 when the Supreme Court upheld the
judgment of the CBI special Court and also ordered a compensation of Rs.50 lakhs
to be paid to the victim. The semblance
of peace which has come to the victim was short lived as Gujarat government
released all eleven convicted persons on the occasion of 75th
Independence Day.
The release came as one of the
convicts approached Supreme Court with prayer that he had completed 15 years in
prison and his case for pre-mature release be considered as per 1992 policy of
the Gujarat Government. Supreme Court,
vide its order dated 13th May, 2022 accepted with petition and
issued direction to the Gujarat Government to consider the application of the
petitioner and also ordered that in case of any unfavorable order the convict
may take remedies as available under the law.
While convicting and sentencing is a
judicial function however executing that sentence and granting remissions is an
executive function. Prison Act, 1894
permits State Governments to make rules for remissions and shortening of
sentences and most of the States have their rules for granting remissions. The power of pre-mature release of the
convicts is exercised by the State Governments under Section 432 and 433 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Different
States have different policies for grant of remission and short sentencing
which keep changing with times and views expressed by the Courts from time to
time. However, there was no uniformity
in grant of remissions and there were instances where the governments of the
day exercised this power in an arbitrary manner and released life convicts who
had undergone only 12 years, 10 years and even lesser periods of sentence. This prompted the central government to
introduce Section 433-A (w.e.f. 18.12.1978) which laid down that if a person is
undergoing life imprisonment for an offence for which death is one of the
punishment then he would not be released unless he has served at least fourteen
years of imprisonment. This resulted in
spate of petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the
newly introduced section on a number of grounds. Supreme Court in its judgment Maru Ram Vs.
UOI (1981-1 SCC 107) held the effect of the Section to be prospective in nature
and it would not apply to the persons convicted by the Courts of law before
18.12.1978 and thus the persons convicted before 18.12.1978 were saved from
rigors of newly introduced Section 433-A of Cr.P.C.
The aforementioned judgment in Maru Ram case (supra) acted as guiding
principle for SC in dealing the question as to which remission/short-sentencing
policy should be applied to the convict. Supreme Court has held that the relevant
policy for the grant of remission and release would be the policy existing on
the date of conviction of the accused [See State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish-2010(4)
SCC 216]. Any amendment in the existing remission policy or any new policy
subsequent to the date of conviction which has a prejudicial effect on the
period of incarceration of the convict has been held to have prospective
affect. Looking from this point of view
the decision of Gujarat government to release the convicts as per 1992 policy appears
to be legally correct.
However, whatever is
legal may not necessarily be ethical or right from the societal point of
view. The question arises as to whether
the State Government had no option but to release the convicts only because
there case was covered by 1992 remission policy? It is settled law that no convict has a
vested right to be considered for pre-mature release and that the power of
short sentencing is discretionary. The
Supreme Court, in case of State of Haryana vs. Mahender Singh [2007-13 SCC 606],
has held that no convict has fundamental right of remission or shortening of
sentence and the a convict has only a legal right to be considered for
remission. In paragraph No.38 of its judgment in case of State of Haryana vs.
Jagdish (supra) the S.C. has indicated certain safeguards while considering the
pre-mature release of the life convicts. One such safeguard is ‘whether the
offence was an individual act of crime without affecting the society at
large’. The heinousness of the crime
perpetrated by these convicts definitely falls within the four corners of this
caveat. The fundamentals of penology and
victimology, particularly in relation to sexual offences, have undergone a sea
change in the aftermaths of Nirbhaya rape case. This being so, the State government would have
been well within its rights to decline to exercise the discretion to release
the convicts by passing speaking order spelling out the reasons for the
same. In that eventuality the convict
would have the option to avail legal remedy as per law in terms of S.C. order
dated 13th May, 2022.
One aspect which remained obscure
from the media bites given by the Gujarat Additional Chief Secretary, Home is
whether the approval of the Central Government was taken before releasing the
convicts. Section 435 of the Criminal
Procedure Code lays down that in cases where the investigation was carried out
by the Delhi Special Police Establishment i.e. the C.B.I then the power to
remit or commute a sentence shall not be exercised by the State government
except after consultation with the Central Government. Now if there is no compliance of this Section
435 then the release of convicts becomes illegal. In case such consultation was done and Centre
gave its approval then it neither falls within the four corners of general
amnesty scheme introduced by the Government of India for release of prisoners
as part of celebrations of Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav which excludes persons
convicted of rape crimes nor does it square with the call to ‘respect women’
given by the Prime Minister from the ramparts of Red Fort. It was certainly not a happy sight to see
eleven convicts of a horrendous crime walking out of prison on the historic day
of 15th August. In releasing
these life convicts Gujarat government may have followed the letter of the law
but not the spirit.
Amit
Jaiswal
Advocate
(Writer is a practicing advocate in Punjab
& Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, India with 20 years of standing at the
Bar practicing largely on Civil and Constitutional side and is a alumni of
Panjab University, Chandigarh)
Comments
Post a Comment