• Section 432 CRPC Remission of sentence Overemphasis on the presiding judge’s opinion and complete disregard of comments of other authorities, while arriving at its conclusion, would render the appropriate government’s decision on a remission application, unsustainable Discretion that the executive is empowered with in executing a sentence, would be denuded of its content, if the presiding judge’s view which is formed in all likelihood, largely (if not solely) on the basis of the judicial record is mechanically followed by the concerned authority. Such an approach has the potential to strikes at the heart, and subvert the concept of remission as a reward and incentive encouraging actions and behaviour geared towards reformation in a modern legal system The views of the presiding judge, are based on the record, which exists, containing all facts resulting in conviction, including the nature of the crime, its seriousness, the accused’s role, and the material available at that stage regarding their antecedents. However, post-conviction conduct, particularly, resulting in the prisoner’s earned remissions, their age and health, work done, length of actual incarceration, etc., rarely fall within the said judge’s domain Remission Board may reconsider the application without entirely or solely relying on it, but treating it as valuable (maybe weighty) advice that is based on the judicial record Given the long period of incarceration already suffered by the writ petitioner and his age, the Remission Board should endeavour to consider the application at the earliest and render its decision, preferably within three months from the date of this judgment
RAJO vs STATE OF BIHAR WPCRL 252/23 25/08/23 [ Ravindra JJ ]
[ SUPREME COURT ]