Supreme Court Directs Reconsideration of Premature Release for Life Convict: Rajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (25 April 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2019

Citation: Not Available

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can a life convict, who has served over 30 years in prison, be granted premature release? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the interpretation of concurrent life sentences and the powers of the state government in granting remission. The court directed the Tamil Nadu government to reconsider the premature release of the petitioner, Rajan, emphasizing that previous rejections should not hinder a fresh review.

Case Background

Rajan, a Sri Lankan refugee, was accused of committing dacoity on 27th July 1988, at the house of one Pitchaikara Grounder. While attempting to escape, Rajan fired a machine gun, resulting in the death of three individuals and injuries to four others. He was charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Indian Arms Act.

The District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannnamalai, convicted Rajan on 25th January 2007, for offences including dacoity, murder, and attempt to murder, sentencing him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for dacoity, life imprisonment for attempt to murder, and capital punishment for murder. The High Court of Judicature at Madras, on 26th February 2008, upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Rajan for offences punishable under Sections 395, 302 (3 counts), 307 (4 counts) of IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 25(1A) and 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act. He was sentenced to 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 395 of IPC, life imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 (4 counts) of IPC, capital punishment for the offence under Section 302 (3 counts) and 5 years’ imprisonment for offences under Section 3 read with Section 25 (1A) of the Indian Arms Act. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court but converted the death sentence into life imprisonment on each of the 3 counts.

Legal Framework

The case involves multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Indian Arms Act, 1959.

• Section 395 of IPC: Deals with the punishment for dacoity.
• Section 302 of IPC: Specifies the punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of IPC: Addresses the punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act: Pertains to the possession of certain prohibited arms.
• Section 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act: (Struck down as unconstitutional) dealt with the use of prohibited arms.

The Supreme Court also considered Section 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which empower the appropriate government to grant remission and commute sentences. The court emphasized that the power to grant premature release is a duty coupled with the power conferred on the appropriate government.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that Section 27(3) of the Arms Act was struck down as unconstitutional in State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh (2012) 3 SCC 346, rendering his conviction under that section void.
• He contended that he had already served over 30 years of actual imprisonment and more than 36 years with remission, which is more than the period served by the petitioner in Ram Sewak vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, where the court ordered release.
• The petitioner submitted that his sentences for offences under Section 395 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act should not be considered, as they were to run concurrently and had already been served.
• He relied on Muthuramalingam and Ors. vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2016) 8 SCC 313 to support his argument that concurrent sentences should not be considered for premature release.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the petitioner was involved in a serious offence and had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on multiple counts.
• They contended that the petitioner’s case was duly considered by the Advisory Board and the State Government, and his proposal for premature release was rejected.
• The State argued that the Central Government was a necessary party, as the request for premature release related to offences under the Arms Act, which requires consultation with the Central Government.
• The respondents asserted that the petitioner was not eligible for premature release based on the guidelines issued by the State.
• They also argued that the petitioner had committed serious offences including dacoity and firing indiscriminately using an AK-47 machine gun.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues the court addressed were:

1. Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act can be reckoned after it was declared ultra vires.
2. Whether sentences for offences under Section 395 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act can be considered for premature release, given that they were to run concurrently.
3. Whether the State Government is required to consult with the Central Government for premature release in this case.
4. Whether the petitioner is eligible for premature release given the nature of the offences and the length of imprisonment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal provisions to arrive at its decision. These authorities are categorized by the legal points they address:

On the unconstitutionality of Section 27(3) of the Arms Act:

• State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 346, Supreme Court of India: This case struck down Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, rendering any conviction under it void.

On the interpretation of concurrent life sentences:

• Muthuramalingam and Ors. vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2016) 8 SCC 313, Supreme Court of India: This Constitution Bench judgment clarified that multiple life sentences run concurrently and that term sentences should not be considered for premature release once the life sentence has commenced.
• Ranjit Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 304, Supreme Court of India: Held that consecutive life sentences cannot be awarded as humans have only one life.

On the power of the State Government to grant remission:

• Union of India vs. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 1, Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the scope of “consultation” with the Central Government and the powers of the State Government in granting remission.
• State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. vs. P. Veera Bhaarathi, 2019 (2) SCALE 225, Supreme Court of India: This case dealt with the premature release of a life convict, emphasizing that the decision lies with the appropriate government.

On the power of the Court to direct release:

• Ram Sewak vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court of India: This unreported decision was cited by the petitioner to argue for immediate release. However, the court clarified that the decision to grant premature release is the prerogative of the government.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 395 of IPC: Punishment for dacoity.
• Section 302 of IPC: Punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of IPC: Punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act: Possession of prohibited arms.
• Section 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act: Use of prohibited arms (struck down).
• Section 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C.: Power of the appropriate government to grant remission and commute sentences.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal principles established in previous cases, particularly the unconstitutionality of Section 27(3) of the Arms Act and the interpretation of concurrent life sentences. The court emphasized the need for the State Government to reconsider the petitioner’s case based on the current legal position, without being influenced by previous rejections. The court also stressed that granting premature release is a power coupled with a duty that must be exercised by the appropriate government.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal precedents and the interpretation of the law, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case. This is reflected in the ratio of 70% law to 30% fact.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument for immediate release, stating that it is the prerogative of the State Government to grant premature release. The court emphasized that it cannot supplant the authority of the State Government in this matter.

The Supreme Court considered the arguments made by the petitioner for immediate release based on the length of imprisonment and the striking down of Section 27(3) of the Arms Act. However, the court rejected these arguments, stating that the decision to grant premature release is the prerogative of the State Government.

The Court also considered the State’s argument that the petitioner was not eligible for premature release. However, the court did not express an opinion on the merits of this submission, instead directing the State to reconsider the matter based on the current legal position.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The conviction under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is void due to the decision in State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh.
• The sentences for offences under Section 395 of IPC and Section 3/25(1A) of the Arms Act cannot be considered for premature release as they were to run concurrently and have already been served, as per Muthuramalingam.
• The decision to grant premature release is the prerogative of the State Government, not the court.
• The State Government must reconsider the petitioner’s representation based on the current legal position, without being influenced by previous rejections.

The Supreme Court did not have any dissenting opinion.

The court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving premature release of life convicts. It clarifies that sentences that run concurrently should not be considered when deciding on premature release. It also reiterates that the power to grant remission lies with the State Government.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. Instead, it reaffirmed the existing legal principles and applied them to the facts of the case.

The Court quoted the following from the judgement:

“Parliament, it manifests from the provisions of Section 427(2) CrPC, was fully cognizant of the anomaly that would arise if a prisoner condemned to undergo life imprisonment is directed to do so twice over.”

“We are also inclined to hold that if more than one life sentences are awarded to the prisoner, the same would get superimposed over each other.”

“The power of the court to direct the order in which sentences will run is unquestionable in view of the language employed in Section 31 CrPC.”

Key Takeaways

✓ Convictions under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act are void due to the ruling in State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh.

✓ Sentences that run concurrently should not be considered when deciding on premature release, as clarified in Muthuramalingam.

✓ The power to grant premature release lies with the State Government, and the courts cannot supplant this authority.

✓ The State Government must reconsider cases for premature release based on the current legal position, without being influenced by past rejections.

The judgment clarifies the legal position on premature release for life convicts, particularly those with multiple life sentences. It emphasizes the need for the State Government to act within its powers and consider all relevant factors when deciding on premature release.

Impact and Conclusion

This judgment has a significant impact on the legal landscape concerning premature release of life convicts. It reinforces the principle that sentences that run concurrently should not be considered when deciding on premature release, as established in Muthuramalingam. It also emphasizes the importance of the State Government’s role in granting remission and the need for a fresh review of cases based on the current legal position.

The judgment clarifies the interplay between the powers of the court and the State Government in matters of premature release. It confirms that while the court can interpret the law, the decision to grant premature release rests with the appropriate government.

This case serves as a reminder of the need for a thorough review of cases involving life convicts, especially those with multiple sentences. It also highlights the importance of adherence to legal precedents and the need for the State Government to exercise its powers judiciously.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s direction to the Tamil Nadu government to reconsider the premature release of Rajan underscores the importance of adhering to legal principles and ensures that the State Government exercises its powers judiciously. The judgment clarifies the legal position on concurrent life sentences, the unconstitutionality of Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, and the State Government’s role in granting remission.