Time heals all wounds: Delhi High Court bats for premature release of murder convict

The Delhi High Court recently observed that punishment should end during the lifetime of a convict, adding that the release of prisoners on sympathetic grounds before completion of their term was a significant part of the ancient Hindu jurisprudence [Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of Nct of Delhi]..Justice Girish Kathpalia in this regard referred to Kautilya’s Arthashastra and other historical literature which he said has references to the element of reformatory policy of sentencing."Kautilya advocated for periodic exercise of premature release of prisoners, who were young or very old or ailing and those who maintained good conduct in prison. The Vth pillar edict of Delhi Topra makes reference to a statement of the emperor Asoka that he had let off prisoners 25 times during a span of 26 years. The Ist separate edict at Dhauli refers to an address by king Asoka to his judicial officers in the capital, calling them upon to ensure that not a single innocent is subjected to unnecessary pain or imprisonment. There existed a conscious and consistent thought amongst ancient thinkers, aimed at reformation of criminals in order to achieve larger goal of peace in society by minimization of crime and criminogenic tendencies," the Court said.It added that other thinkers across the globe have also nurtured the idea that reformatory policies are more productive than a deterrent and retributory approach to crime..The Court was dealing with the plea of a man sentenced to life imprisonment for abduction and murder. He has undergone more than 18 years imprisonment without remission and more than 21 years with remission. He had approached the Court seeking release on the basis of a 2004 policy framed by the Delhi government. The Sentence Review Board (SRB) had earlier rejected his plea on the ground that he had jumped parole and got re-arrested after five years in two new cases. However, his counsel argued that a single default of jumping parole in 2010 ought not to be considered now after 15 years..After considering the arguments, the Court observed that the minutes of the meetings of the SRB do not contain any deliberations or reasoning and thus the allegations of non-application cannot be brushed aside.“The composition of the SRB would make this court assume that each matter is discussed threadbare in such meetings. But unfortunately, the manner in which minutes of these meetings were worded, the allegation of non-application of mind cannot be brushed aside,” the Court stated. In the backdrop, the Court highlighted various loopholes in the functioning of the SRB itself. The approach of the SRB ought to be reformation-oriented and not a routine disposal/statistics dominated exercise, it stressed."The SRB members appointed in their official capacity do not personally attend the meeting and rather send their representatives, owing to their other heavy official engagements. The profile of members of the SRB is such that it is practically not possible for all of them to gather and scrutinize so many cases dealing with human attitudes and personality. The Chairman of the SRB being the Minister and members of SRB being the Principal Secretary (Home) and Secretary (Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs), they opting to send their representatives owing to their overall heavy workload cannot be faulted with. Same is the status qua the District & Sessions Judge," it said..Therefore, the Court suggested that the composition of the SRB needs to be re-examined to make the exercise of sentence review meaningful."It is suggested that the composition of SRB must include the judicial officer concerned (or her/his successor) who sentenced the prisoner under consideration; that judicial officer would better contribute after examining the entire trial and sentencing records. It is further suggested that composition of SRB must include an eminent sociologist and a criminologist with missionary zeal and sensitivity towards reformation of the prisoner under consideration. Another vital component of SRB can be the concerned Jail Superintendent, who had the best opportunity to watch the reformative growth or otherwise of the prisoner concerned from close quarters."It added that the composition of the SRB should be based on a nexus between the jail performance of the prisoner and the job profile of the member concerned, instead of just the high official designation of the member..Taking note of the time spent by the convict in jail, the Court observed that the seriousness of offence in this case must be seen as faded."Not that due to passage of time, the inherent perversity of the crime per se diminishes in any manner. But for the purposes of reformative sentencing, such long incarceration, as already suffered by the petitioner, the perversity must be visualised as faded."It also observed that after 2015, there is not even a whiff of any allegation of any misconduct on the part of the convict in jail."In the overall circumstances of this case, I have no doubt that the petitioner stands substantially reformed and can become a useful member of the society. Keeping the petitioner in jail for further period would not yield any fruitful result towards his reformation or to the society at large," it ruled..The Court, however, did not release the petitioner but directed the SRB to re-examine the entire issue in the light of the above discussion."For, life imprisonment, by its very nature is awarded in gruesome offences where the appropriate punishment is a bit short of awarding capital sentence. A punishment, to be scientific has to have an end somewhere during lifetime of the convict," the Court said..Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju with Advocates Ali Chaudhary, Shristi Borthakur and Abuzar Ali appeared for Yadav. Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari for State with Advocates Sushant Bali, Avita Bhandari, Arjit Sharma and Nikunj Bindal appeared for GNCTD. .[Read Judgment]