Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ram Chander, was convicted for offences including murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court on 7 December 2010. The conviction was confirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 10 May 2013, and a subsequent special leave petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed. On 25 September 2021, after completing 16 years of imprisonment without remission, the petitioner applied for premature release under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968. Rule 358 provides for consideration of premature release of life convicts who have completed 14 years of imprisonment without remission, subject to certain conditions. The State Government, however, did not decide on the application. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a writ to direct the State to grant him premature release. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Rule 358 and Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the appropriate government to suspend or remit sentences. The Court noted that the State Government has a statutory duty to consider applications for premature release and that the failure to do so violates the petitioner's right to be considered for remission. The Court directed the State of Chhattisgarh to consider the petitioner's application for premature release in accordance with Rule 358 and Section 432 CrPC, and to pass a reasoned order within a period of three months. The Court did not grant the relief of premature release itself but left it to the State to decide on merits.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Premature Release - Life Imprisonment - Rule 358 of Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 - Section 432 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The petitioner, a life convict, sought premature release after completing 16 years of imprisonment without remission. The Supreme Court held that the State Government has a duty to consider such applications in accordance with Rule 358 and Section 432 CrPC, and failure to do so amounts to a violation of the convict's right to be considered for remission. The Court directed the State to decide the application within a stipulated time. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Life - Article 32 of Constitution of India - Premature Release - The Court held that the right to seek premature release is a facet of the right to life under Article 21, and the State's inaction in considering the application under Rule 358 is a violation of that right. The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 32 to direct the State to perform its statutory duty. (Paras 1, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government is obligated to consider and decide upon an application for premature release made by a life convict under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968, and whether the failure to do so violates the convict's fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court directed the State of Chhattisgarh to consider the petitioner's application for premature release in accordance with Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules, 1968 and Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and to pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.
Law Points
- Premature release
- Life imprisonment
- Rule 358 of Chhattisgarh Prisons Rules 1968
- Section 432 CrPC
- Consideration of application
- Timely decision
- Mandatory duty of State
