Supreme Court lays down factors to decide on remission; says trial judge opinion should not be mechanically followed

The Supreme Court recently highlighted the importance of holistically considering applications for premature release or remission of eligible convicts and laid down factors to guide such decisions. [Rajo vs State of Bihar and ors]. .A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Prashant Kumar Mishra laid down the following factors for the remission board or the government to consider while deciding on remission pleas:- Potential of the convict to commit crimes in the future; his socio-economic conditions, age, state of health, familial relationships, the possibility of reintegration, and the extent of earned remission;- Post-conviction conduct including, but not limited to, whether the convict has attained any educational qualification while in custody, volunteer services offered, job or work done, jail conduct, whether they were engaged in any socially aimed or productive activity, and the overall development as a human being;-Whether there remains any fruitful purpose of continued incarceration.Pertinently, the remission board should not entirely rely either on the reports of the presiding judge who conducted the trial or the police, the bench stated.A stereotypical approach to deny remission would defeat the object of remission, which is to limit incarceration of reformed convicts for long periods, the Court added..Pertinently, the Court also pointed out that undue weightage should not be given to the adverse opinion of only one member of a remission board like the presiding judge who conducted the trial."The discretion that the executive is empowered with in executing a sentence, would be denuded of its content, if the presiding judge’s view – which is formed in all likelihood, largely (if not solely) on the basis of the judicial record – is mechanically followed by the concerned authority. Such an approach has the potential to strikes at the heart, and subvert the concept of remission – as a reward and incentive encouraging actions and behaviour geared towards reformation – in a modern legal system," the Court said.The Court opined that an overemphasis on the presiding judge's opinion, while disregarding the comments of other authorities, would render the decision on remission unsustainable. The top court clarified that it is not that the presiding judge’s view has no real weight. However, a trial court judge's report cannot be predominantly relied on to decide on remission, particularly if the judge's report focuses only on the crime, "with little or no attention to the criminal," the Court explained..The Court made these observations while disposing of a petition seeking remission filed by a man (petitioner) convicted of murder by a Bihar trial court in 2001.The convict had spent over 24 years behind bars.The Remission Board rejected his application for premature release twice owing to adverse opinions by the presiding judge in both rounds and by the Superintendent of Police (SP) in the second round.The Patna High Court later dismissed his plea for non-prosecution leading to the filing of the petition before the Supreme Court..The Supreme Court noted that both the reports submitted by the presiding judge contained a 'casual opinion' that was based solely on the judicial record of conviction. The trial judge, therefore, only offered a dated insight on the convict since the judge had limited opportunities to examine the progress made by the convict during his sentence, the Supreme Court observed.The bench also noted that in reality, trial court judges do not exercise discretion during sentencing by looking at a wide range of factors concerning the accused.Further, the adverse report of the SP needs to be weighed after considering the possible biases involved, since the deceased in the case were policemen, the bench pointed out..The Supreme Court ultimately directed the remission board to reconsider the petitioner's remission plea within three months. .Advocate Randhir Kumar Ojha appeared for the convict, one Rajendra Mandal. Advocates Azmat Hayat Amanullah and TG Shahi represented the Bihar government..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.