Sunday, May 19, 2024

Supreme Court adjourns 70-year-old murder convict’s plea for premature release

The Supreme Court has adjourned the plea filed of a 70-year-old murder convict, who has been behind bars for more than 16 years without remission. 

The bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant had issued notice on the earlier date. 

The petitioner has preferred a writ petition for premature release. It is submitted that after completion of 16 years incarceration in 2021, the Recommendation for Pre-Mature release was presented before the Government of Chhattisgarh under Rule 358 of Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule, 1968, which is still pending for consideration. 

As per 358 (3)(B) Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule, 1968, after the completion of 14 years with remission and 10 years of actual sentence, the proposal for premature release of the convict would be considered for the release. Secondly, as 358 (3) (D) Chhattisgarh Prisons Rule, 1968 if the convict is 65 years of age, his proposal for premature release would be considered if the convict has completed/undergone 7 years with remission. Despite the fact that the convict herein is about 70 years of age and completing 16 years of an actual sentence (20 Years with remission as of 25.09.2021) is qualified to be considered under both the categories but his case has not been given consideration under the above rules. 

Also read: Supreme Court adjourns hearing in SBI Bank fraud case involving fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya

As far as the facts of the matter are concerned, the petitioner was settled in village Bhurki for the purpose of doing agriculture. The complainant’s family were the neighbouring farmers. On account of agricultural land, the petitioner killed the father and brother of the complainant. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner and 5 others in the police station Behematra. 

The trial court convicted the petitioner and 5 others for life imprisonment. The petitioner then appealed in Chhattisgarh High Court in 2010 followed by Supreme Court in 2015, but it was dismissed upholding the conviction.

Also read: Gratuity claim cannot be rejected on ground of not filling Option Form: Allahabad High Court

The petitioner referred to the judgement Union of India v Sriharan 2016 7 SCC and submitted that it is a well-settled principle of law that a convict undergoing life imprisonment can apply to the concerned authority for obtaining remission either under Article 72 and 161 of the constitution of India or under Section 432 Cr.P.C and the authority would be obliged to consider the same fair and reasonable matter. 

The matter is to be listed after 2 weeks. 

Case Name- Ramchandra Vs State of UP 


News Update