Govt not to mechanically follow opinion of trial judge in remission of sentence, says Supreme Court

The opinion of the presiding judge would enable the government to take the ‘right’ decision as to whether or not the sentence should be remitted, the court said

The Supreme Court on Friday said the government does not have to follow mechanically an opinion rendered by a presiding judge, though it is a determinative factor in deciding remission of a life term convict.

"The opinion of the presiding judge would enable the government to take the ‘right’ decision as to whether or not the sentence should be remitted. Hence, it cannot be said that the opinion of the presiding judge is only a relevant factor, which does not have any determinative effect on the application for remission," a bench presided over by Justice D Y Chandrachud said.

The top court further pointed out the purpose of the procedural safeguard under Section 432 (2) of the CrPC would stand defeated if the opinion of the presiding judge becomes just another factor that may be taken into consideration by the government while deciding the application for remission. It is possible then that the procedure under Section 432 (2) would become a mere formality, it added.

"This is not to say that the appropriate government should mechanically follow the opinion of the presiding judge. 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, the government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh," the bench, also comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose said.

The top court explained the legal provision related to remission while dealing with a writ petition filed by a life term convict, Ram Chander, questioning Chhattisgarh government's decision to reject his plea for premature release after 16 years jail.

The state government said the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 433-A CrPC because the presiding judge opined against releasing him on remission.

The top court noted in the case, there is nothing to indicate that the presiding judge took into account the factors like 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 socioeconomic condition of the convict’s family.

It directed the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh, saying "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... to enable the executive to make an informed decision taking into consideration all the relevant factors."

Watch latest videos by DH here: