[Remission under Section 432 CrPC] Sentencing Court should give adequate reasons while giving opinion: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that while giving an opinion on the grant of remission of a sentence under Section 432(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the presiding officer of the sentencing court must give adequate reasons [Jaswant Singh and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another]..A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M Trivedi reiterated that such an opinion should only be given after taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2002).In the Laxmi Nasar case, the Supreme Court had laid down certain factors to be considered by the presiding officer of the sentencing Court before giving an opinion on grant of remission of a convict under Section 432(2), CrPC. These factors include:- whether the offence affects the society at large; - the probability of the crime being repeated; - the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; - if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and- the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family..The bench also recounted the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the subject in cases such as Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan and Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, to quote:"... If the opinion of the presiding judge does not comply with the requirements of Section 432 (2) or if the 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 ... ... 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," the apex court said. .In the present case, the petitioner-convicts had been sentenced to life imprisonment for constituting an unlawful assembly and murdering two persons with deadly weapons. .They had been convicted in 2015 by a Special Court in Durg for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 as well as Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act). The verdict and sentence was also confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, on appeal. .After having undergone a part of their life sentence, the petitioners made several representations under Section 432 (2) of CrPC, seeking a remission of their sentence/ premature release. However, the representations of the petitioners were rejected by the concerned authorities. .Pertinently, in their case, the presiding judge of the sentencing court had given an opinion against the proposed remission, opining 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. Taking note of the judge's opinion, the State's Law Department and the Director-General of Jail and Correctional Services had also rejected the applications of the petitioner..In the meantime, a co-accused, who had also been convicted along with the petitioners, moved the Supreme Court seeking relief. The said co-accused sought directions to the concerned authorities to reconsider the matter of his premature release.The Court, while disposing of that plea, directed the sentencing judge to provide an opinion afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning after taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down in Laxmi Nasar. After such reconsideration as directed, the sentencing court was eventually of the opinion that the sentence of the co-accused could be remitted. .In view of this development, the present petitioners also moved the Supreme Court seeking a similar direction for a fresh consideration of their applications for remission. .The Supreme Court, in turn, proceeded to grant similar relief to the petitioners, after noting that the sentencing court had not given an adequately reasoned opinion in their case. "Since the case of the present petitioners is also similar to the case of the co-accused Ram Chander (co-accused), 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," the Supreme Court said. .The apex court, therefore, allowed the plea by directing the Special Judge, Durg to provide an opinion on the applications of the petitioners afresh with adequate reasoning after taking into consideration the relevant factors laid down in the Laxmi Nasar case..[Read Judgment]