Date of the Judgment: October 10, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 904
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
Can a person convicted of murder be released prematurely after serving a long prison sentence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a man convicted of killing his brother. The court, while upholding the conviction, directed the State to consider the premature release of the appellant, who had already served approximately 20 years in jail. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, with Justice Kurian Joseph authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case involves an incident that occurred on April 8, 1999, where the appellant, Suganlal, killed his real brother. Suganlal was subsequently convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of several witnesses (PWs. 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8). The appellant had raised a defense of unsoundness of mind during the trial, but this was not accepted by the Trial Court due to lack of supporting evidence. The High Court also upheld the Trial Court’s decision, noting the nature of injuries and the evidence on record.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 8, 1999 | The incident of fratricide occurred. |
| Undisclosed | Trial Court convicted Suganlal under Section 302 of the IPC. |
| Undisclosed | High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision. |
| October 10, 2018 | Supreme Court directs State to consider premature release. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses. The appellant’s defense of unsound mind was not accepted due to the lack of supporting evidence. The High Court reviewed the evidence and the nature of the injuries, and concurred with the Trial Court’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision under consideration in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder. It states:
“302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”
Arguments
The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the incident. However, this argument was not supported by any evidence presented before the Trial Court or the High Court. The State, on the other hand, argued for upholding the conviction based on the evidence and the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission |
|
| State’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the primary issue before the court was:
- Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC should be upheld.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC should be upheld. | The Court upheld the conviction. However, considering the long period of incarceration of the appellant, it directed the State to consider premature release. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The judgment primarily relied on the facts of the case and the evidence presented before the lower courts.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| None | Not Applicable |
Judgment
| Submission | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that he was of unsound mind | The Court did not accept this submission due to lack of supporting evidence. |
| State’s submission to uphold the conviction | The Court upheld the conviction based on the evidence and the concurrent findings of the lower courts. |
The Court considered the fact that the appellant had been in jail for around 20 years and directed the State to consider his premature release. The court noted that the case was a result of a quarrel between two brothers and that the appellant had already spent a significant amount of time in jail.
The court directed the appellant to be released forthwith on self bond, subject to the final orders to be passed by the State Government.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The appellant had already served a long prison sentence of approximately 20 years.
- The incident was a result of a quarrel between two brothers.
- The Court considered the humanitarian aspect of the case.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Length of Imprisonment | 40% |
| Nature of the Incident (Fratricide) | 30% |
| Humanitarian Considerations | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Supreme Court did not delve into alternative interpretations of the law or the facts. The decision was primarily based on the long period of incarceration and the specific circumstances of the case.
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Kurian Joseph, with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer concurring.
The court observed that “the appellant has been in jail for around 20 years and with remission much more.” It further noted that “it is a case of a quarrel between two brothers.” The court also stated that “the appellant has, in any case, spent around 20 years of actual imprisonment.”
Key Takeaways
- A person convicted of murder may be considered for premature release after serving a long prison sentence.
- The nature of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it can be a factor in considering premature release.
- The State has the authority to make the final decision on premature release.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the State Government to consider and take a decision on the premature release of the appellant. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith on self bond, subject to the final orders to be passed by the State Government.
Development of Law
The judgment does not lay down any new legal principle but emphasizes the importance of considering the length of incarceration and the specific circumstances of a case when deciding on premature release. It does not change the previous position of law but provides a specific direction in this case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC but directed the State to consider his premature release due to his long period of incarceration and the specific circumstances of the case. The court directed the appellant’s release on self-bond, pending the State’s decision on his premature release.
Category
- Criminal Law
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Premature Release
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Suganlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case?
A: The main issue was whether the Supreme Court should uphold the conviction of Suganlal for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and whether he should be considered for premature release given his long time in prison.
Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to consider Suganlal’s premature release, given that he had already served approximately 20 years in jail.
Q: What is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?
A: Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the punishment for murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Q: What does premature release mean?
A: Premature release refers to the release of a prisoner from jail before the completion of their full sentence. This is often considered for prisoners who have shown good behavior and have served a significant portion of their sentence.
Q: What factors did the Supreme Court consider while directing the State to consider premature release?
A: The Supreme Court considered the fact that Suganlal had already served around 20 years in jail, the incident was a result of a quarrel between two brothers, and the humanitarian aspect of the case.