Convict whose death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment entitled to remission: Patna High Court

A person whose death penalty has been commuted to life imprisonment is eligible for remission, the Patna High Court recently reiterated [ Anuj Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar ].

. Single-judge Justice Ranjan Prasad referred to Sections 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to reaffirm that where sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted to life imprisonment, such person can be released from prison if he/ she has served at least 14 years in prison.

Acting on a convict’s plea, the Court directed the Bihar State Remission Board to consider his case while holding that a previous decision of the Remission Board on January 27 last year rejecting the man's plea for premature release, was “completely arbitrary” and "bad in law” and liable to be set aside.

The Remission Board was, therefore, directed to consider afresh the plea of the convict who had already spent 20 years in jail.

. “The Remission Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release in the very next meeting of the board which may be likely to be held after receipt/communication of this order but in any case such decision must be taken within two months from the date of receipt/communication of this order,” the Court ordered on December 13.

The man, through his counsel, had sought a direction to the authorities to consider his case for premature release under the provisions of Section 433 (power to commute sentence) and 433A (restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and provisions of the Bihar prison manual besides principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Patna High Court.

. He was sentenced to death in 2005 by the trial court, which held him guilty of kidnapping and killing a 14-year-old in 2002.

In his appeal, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court had acquitted him of kidnapping and criminal conspiracy charges, but confirmed his conviction for murder and commuted his death penalty to a life term.

. It came on record that following his representations to the authorities, it appeared that the remission board in its meeting on January 27, 2020, had considered his case falling under the murder charge as well as of kidnapping and criminal conspiracy.

The Board held that the convict had kidnapped a boy of less than 14 years for ransom and murdered him for which he was found guilty, and rejected his representation.

One of the arguments of the convict's counsel was that while acquitting him of kidnapping and criminal conspiracy charges, the Division Bench had held that the murder was not on account of a pre-determination but perhaps the failure to find a safe place to hide the boy in order to negotiate for ransom.

. Therefore, the opinion referred to by the Remission Board that it was a case of premeditated murder after kidnapping of the boy was stated to be “completely contrary to the findings” of the Division Bench, it was contended.

The counsel relied on the State’s policy of 2002 for the premature release of prisoners contending his client was fit to be considered for release.

According to the State, even though the 2002 policy was applicable to the convict, the commutation of his death sentence to life-imprisonment would not allow him the reprieve of remission.

. The High Court found that the Remission Board had erred in taking a view that the convict was involved in the murder of the boy with a pre-meditated mindset after kidnapping him.

“ The remission board could not appreciate that the charges under Section 364A (kidnapping) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC were not proved against the petitioner and he was acquitted of those charges ,” it observed.

. The Board was stated to have remained “completely unmindful” of the social investigation report submitted by the probation officer, who had previously opined in favour of giving an opportunity to the convict to rehabilitate. The Court further noted that detailed guidelines concerning the premature release of prisoners had not been followed.

After the Court called for a response from the State on certain aspects, it was informed by the Bihar Prison Authority and Correctional Services that the State government was considering the remission of sentence with respect to those serving life imprisonment after tcommutation of their death sentence.

. It was noted that according to the remission policy, convicts whose death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment were required to have served a minimum of 14 years from the day of conviction, and the sum of remission and custody was supposed to be 20 years.

The convict's counsel argued that he had undergone 22 years imprisonment including the period of remission.

“ In view of the categorical finding of the division bench of this Court, the case of the petitioner cannot be brought within any of the exceptions so as to render him ineligible from consideration ,” the Court underlined.

. The verdict further highlighted,

“ It goes without saying that the remission board shall follow the procedures in terms of the Government’s policy, i.e., notification dated 10.12.2002 and in the light of the discussions made in this judgment .”

. Advocate Surendra Kumar Singh appeared for the petitioner while advocate Prabhu Narayan Sharma represented the State.

. [ Read Judgment ]

Convict whose death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment entitled to remission: Patna High Court

Aamir Khan

Related Stories