Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2278 (RAJ)

Navrangi v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-22

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Navrangi seeking to assail the adverse recommendations of the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur dated 24.12.2018, whereby, the application filed by her son Sandeep Goswami, the convict, for release on first parole of 20 days was rejected. The convict is a permanent resident of Bihar State. The reason assigned by the District Parole Advisory Committee for rejection of the parole application is that the opinion of the District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and the Social Welfare Department of Bihar, from where the convict hails, had not been received. 2. It may be stated here that the convict Sandeep Goswami was convicted vide judgment dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a stipulation that the life sentence shall run till the natural tenure of his life. In reference to the above condition, the respondents alongwith their reply have placed on record a letter dated 12.11.2018 issued from the Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, in which it has been expressed that imprisonment for life means that it would run till the natural life tenure of the person concerned and thus, it would not be possible to calculate one-fourth part of the sentence of such convict and hence, the convict sentenced to life imprisonment would not be entitled to parole under the Parole Rules. 3. Mr. Ashok Chhangani and Mr. K.R. Bhati, learned counsel representing the petitioner, referred to Rule 15(d) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 and submitted that the clarificatory letter dated 12.11.2018 issued by the Home Department, Government of Rajasthan is totally repugnant to the statutory rules and as such, the same deserves to be ignored/struck down. They, thus, submitted that the instant writ petition is fit to be accepted because the respondents have rejected the parole application of the convict in an absolutely casual lackadaisical manner and without application of mind. 4. Mr. Abhishek Purohit, learned counsel representing the respondents, put up a formal opposition to the contention of Mr. Chhangani. However, he too is not in position to dispute the fact that the contents of the letter dated 12.11.2018 filed alongwith the reply are totally repugnant to the statutory provisions of the Rule 15 (d) of the Rules of 1958. 5. Mr. Abhishek Purohit, learned counsel representing the respondents, put up a formal opposition to the contention of Mr. Chhangani. However, he too is not in position to dispute the fact that the contents of the letter dated 12.11.2018 filed alongwith the reply are totally repugnant to the statutory provisions of the Rule 15 (d) of the Rules of 1958. 5. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and gone through the material available on record. 6. The relevant part of the clarificatory letter dated 12.11.2018 issued from the Home Department is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :- 7. Though apparently the header of the letter dated 12.11.2018 reads that the legal opinion was being issued for the prisoners, who were awarded life imprisonment which was ordered to run for the rest of their natural life, but while dealing with the matter, substantive consideration has been made of all the convicts, who have been sentenced to life imprisonment. The computation of sentence for the purpose of Rules of 1958 is to be done in accordance with Rule 15, which reads as below :- "15. Computation of Sentences.- For the purpose of these rules the following principles shall be observed in computing the period of sentence of imprisonment, namely;- (a) When a prisoner has been sentenced to several terms of imprisonment for several offences, and the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently, then the longest single sentence which the prisoner is undergoing shall be deemed to the term of his imprisonment; (b) When a prisoner has been sentenced to several terms of imprisonment for several offences and the sentence of imprisonment have been ordered to run consecutively, the total period which the prisoner is to undergo shall be deemed to be the term of his imprisonment; (c) Remission already earned by the prisoner shall be counted as imprisonment served by him; and (d) Life sentences [for the purposes of these rules] be reckoned as 20 years." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again advocated principles of reformative justice while dealing with the cases of convicts serving sentences in the prisons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again advocated principles of reformative justice while dealing with the cases of convicts serving sentences in the prisons. In view of the unambiguous position of the statutory rules governing parole (referred to Supra), while computing the sentence for grant of regular paroles of 20, 30 and 40 days, as the case may be, life sentence has to be reckoned as 20 years [Rule 15 (d)]. However, we may hasten to add and clarify that where the question of release of a convict on "permanent parole" arises, the fact that the court concerned has awarded imprisonment for life which would enure till the natural life of the convict, would definitely prevail being a judicial order. 9. Thus, we are of the opinion that irrespective of the stipulation in the sentence awarding order mentioning that the imprisonment for life shall run till the natural life tenure of the convict, he/she cannot be deprived of regular parole of 20, 30 and 40 days in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1958. 10. Thus, with the above clarification and observations, we hereby quash the impugned recommendations of the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jodhpur dated 24.12.2018 qua the convict Sandeep Goswami and direct that the Parole Advisory Committee shall forthwith and not later than within a period eight weeks from the date of submission of a copy of this order procure the requisite reports and pass appropriate lawful order on the first parole application of the convict. 11. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.