Jails correctional homes with high hopes: Calcutta High Court orders reconsideration of life convict’s release after 32 years in jail

The judicial department did not consider the prayer for premature release of the petitioner in proper perspective, said the Calcutta High Court.

Findings

• If after almost 32 years of serving a sentence, the petitioner’s prayer for premature release is refused by the judicial department, the immediate impression is that the state has failed to discharge its obligation to reform the convict in the proper perspective.
• The court convicting the petitioner has opined for his premature release.
• There is no adverse report against the petitioner from the correctional home.
• The co-convict, that is, the brother of the petitioner, who was also awarded life sentence was able to secure his premature release in or about 2012.
• Unfortunately, the prayer of the petitioner was turned down mainly on the ground that as he is only 51 years old and he has the ability to commit further offence if he is released prematurely.
• The officers concerned of the judicial department did not consider any health report of the petitioner.
• When a person is incarcerated in the correctional home for about 32 years, he cannot be equated with a normal person aged about 51 years who lives a free life.
• The observation of the judicial department which was made without taking into consideration the health report of the petitioner cannot be said to be a sound one.
• On such ground alone it cannot say that as he is physically fit and there are chances of the petitioner committing further offence if released prematurely.
• The logic that since the petitioner is only 51 years of age, he is in a position to commit similar or other offences, is not sound at all.
• The conclusion is more speculative than logical.
• It is quite possible that after 32 years of incarceration, the petitioner is a reformed person.
• We do not see any reason to consider his prayer for premature release with an adverse presumption in mind.
• The observation did not reflect that the co-convict Kailas Yadav, the brother of the petitioner has already secured his premature release.
• It appears to us that the present petitioner stands on the same footing with the co-convict.
• The judicial department did not consider the prayer for premature release of the petitioner in proper perspective since no health report of the petitioner was scrutinised.
• The observation of the judicial department that as “being only 51 years of age his capacity to commit further crime may still be a concern for the society.
• “His premature release may not be recommended,” cannot be said to be based on sound reasoning.
• There are materials to show that there is a serious discrimination exercised between two convicts although they are standing on the same footing.
• We are constrained to hold that the ground for refusing the prayer for premature release of the petitioner is not based on sound reasoning.

Decision

• The high court quashed the July 2024 memo of the judicial department rejecting Yadav’s plea for premature release and set aside the single judge’s order.
• The bench directed the principal secretary, judicial department, government of West Bengal, to reconsider the convict’s prayer with compassion and in light of the court’s observations within three weeks from the date of communication of the order.
• The appeal was accordingly allowed, with the registrar general directed to immediately communicate the order to the judicial department and a copy to the petitioner for his information.

Background

• Babulal Yadav, along with his brother, was convicted by a trial court on April 27, 1995, and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.
• The conviction was affirmed in appeal in 2007.
• According to the record before the high court, Yadav has remained in custody for almost 32 years.
• In 2022, his case for premature release was placed before the state sentence review board, which recommended his premature release.
• However, the judicial department refused to approve the recommendation, citing concerns that Yadav, being about 51 years of age, still had the “capacity to commit further offence.”
• Aggrieved by the rejection, Yadav approached the high court.
• A single judge dismissed his writ petition, holding that since the judicial department had declined to approve the recommendation, no relief could be granted.
• This led to the present appeal before the high court.

Arguments

• Advocates Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Bhaskar Seth, Sukla Das Chandra, Swarnali Saha appearing for the appellant argued that the judicial department’s refusal was arbitrary and ignored material considerations.
• The counsel submitted that there was no adverse report against Yadav from the correctional home.
• The counsel also said that the trial court itself had opined in favour of his premature release.
• His co-convict brother, who stood on the same footing and had been awarded a life sentence, had already secured premature release around 2012, submitted the counsel.
• Advocates Vimal Kumar Shah, Susmita Chatterjee, appearing for the state, defended the decision of the judicial department.
• Relying on the gravity of the offence and the observation that the convict’s age left open the possibility of future criminal conduct, the state opposed the plea.