Valmiki lived life of crime before writing Ramayanam; society can reform criminals: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently emphasised that Indian criminal jurisprudence is one of reformation and not just punishment [Nixon v. The City Police Commissioner]..Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed that various external factors contribute to a person's criminal actions such as economic hardship, lack of access to quality education, unemployment, dysfunctional family environment and unaddressed mental health issues. "To remove criminal activities from our society, better education, creating job opportunities, support for mental health, community engagement, etc., are important. By addressing these underlying factors, society can work towards reducing crime rates and promoting a safer, more supportive environment for all, including the criminals," the Court opined.As society plays a part in creating criminals, it also plays a vital role in their reformation. "An environment in which society continues to blame criminals simply because of their past history should be avoided. A person is not born as a criminal. The society and all of us create criminals because of certain situations which should be avoided. Therefore, every citizen has a duty to see that the criminals are going on a reformatory pathway," the Court said.Interestingly, Justice Kunhikrishnan referred to Hindu sage Valmiki's life of crime before he wrote the epic Ramayanam."As per the Hindu purana, ‘Ramayanam’ was written by Valmiki. Valmiki, one of the most revered sages in Hindu mythology, was originally a forest dweller who lived a life of crime, by robbing travellers in the forest to support his family. The puranic story says that, after he met the ‘Saptarishis’ (Seven sages) and heard their words, he reformed and thereafter wrote the great epic 'Ramayana'. It cannot be said that a criminal will always be a criminal and a rowdy will always be a rowdy. If the person is coming with a genuine claim that he is on the reformative pathway, the court cannot ignore the same", the Court's judgment stated.In this regard, Justice Kunhikrishnan also highlighted his own order from 2023 in which he granted parole to Ripper Jayanandhan, a notorious murderer, to attend an event for the launch of his book."I am not saying that the above-mentioned person is already reformed. But it seems that he is on the path of reformation. It is also to be noted that the relatives of the persons who were murdered by him are also in the society. That is one of the reasons why he is continuing in jail even now," the judge explained. .The judgment was passed on a petition moved by a man whose name and photo was in the rowdy list of the Fort Kochi Police station. He sought removal of the same arguing that he has not been accused in a crime in over 8 years and that he is now a reformed man. He bolstered his claim by pointing to his stable job, improved friends circle and regular visits to church. He also submitted that he was acquitted in all but one of the cases in which he was accused. The trial in the remaining case in which he is the eighth accused is currently pending. The public prosecutor strongly opposed the petition and claimed that the petitioner still maintains ties with persons engaged in criminal activities making his surveillance necessary even now. .Considering the petitioner's submissions, the Court deemed it fit to order that his details be removed from the rowdy list. However, the Court stated that the intention of the police was only to protect society and asked the petitioner to always remember that the Court has given him a chance at continuing on a new path. The Court also made it clear that a rowdy list is only meant for the use of the police personnel and should not be displayed in police stations for the public to see."It is clear that the photographs of the criminals are not displayed in the police station premises, which is accessible to the public. It will be kept in a secure area accessible only to the police personnel, ensuring confidentiality and preventing public exposure. Therefore, there is no infringement of the privacy of the criminals, and society should also know the same," the Court said. .The petitioner was represented by advocate Shabu Sreedharan.Senior Public Prosecutor P Narayanan and Senior Government Pleader Sajju S appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]