InWrit Petition (Criminal) No(s). 520 of 2022 -SC- Supreme Court orders immediate release of convict in 1996 rape-murder case
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice Dipankar Datta [21-09-2023]

Read Order:Joseph V. The State of Kerala &Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 26, 2023: The Supreme Court has recently ordered the immediate release of a man who had been serving a life imprisonment sentence for rape and murder committed in 1996.

During the hearing, it was brought to the court’s attention that the petitioner's case had been reviewed by the Advisory Committee/Jail Advisory Board under the Kerala Prison Rules, 1958 and the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014. These reviews had taken place on nine separate occasions, and notably, the Board had recommended the petitioner's premature release three times. However, the state government had declined his request for premature release on all three occasions.

In the said case, the petitioner had approached the court seeking to enforce his right under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. He sought an appropriate direction to the state government to prematurely release him, having been in custody for over 26 years and having served a sentence of over 35 years, which included more than 8 years of remission earned.

It was alleged that the petitioner had visited his sister-in-law's (the deceased victim) workplace and, under false pretences that her mother was seriously ill and hospitalized, convinced her to leave with him. According to the prosecution, he made her walk along the railway line and, at a secluded location, allegedly raped her, stole the jewellery she was wearing, and then left her on the tracks to be runover by a passing train.

The division bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta noted that the prison laws in India, when read with Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, are rooted in a profound rehabilitative objective. It was emphasized that implementing a guideline that automatically denies the consideration of a premature release request from a convict who has served more than 20 or 25 years, solely based on the nature of the crime committed in the distant past, would effectively extinguish any hope of reformation and a fresh start for such an individual.

“Excluding the relief of premature release to prisoners who have served extremely long periods of incarceration, not only crushes their spirit, and instils despair, but signifies society’s resolve to be harsh and unforgiving,” said the division bench.

The bench also took note of Rule 376 of the 2014 Rules, which stipulates that prisoners can earn remission for displaying peace and good behaviour while incarcerated. It was noted that according to the state's records, the petitioner had earned over 8 years of remission, indicating his exemplary conduct while serving his sentence. Additionally, the minutes of the meetings of the Jail Advisory Board provided positive assessments of the petitioner, describing him as hardworking, disciplined, and a reformed inmate.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, the court deemed it appropriate to order the immediate release of the petitioner.