Delhi High Court: Petitioner, who was serving his life sentence, approached this Court under Article 226, 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking parole for four weeks on the ground of maintaining social ties with his family and for undergoing a knee surgery. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, opined that petitioner was a habitual offender, who was involved in about twenty criminal cases and was convicted in two cases involving commission of offences such as murder and robbery. Thus, after considering petitioner’s criminal history, his overall conduct inside the jail premises and the gravity of the offences committed by him, the Court held that it was not inclined to grant parole to petitioner at this stage.
Background
Petitioner was currently confined in Central Jail No. 15, Mandoli, Delhi, in a case in which he was convicted vide judgment dated 14-07-2016, and vide order dated 22-08-2016, he was sentenced to death for offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Sections 364 and 394 of the IPC, simple imprisonment for seven years for offence under Sections 201 and 468 of the IPC, two years of simple imprisonment for offence under Section 471 of the IPC, and one year of simple imprisonment for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’). However, this Court in State v. Ravi Kapoor, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6400, had commuted the death sentence awarded to petitioner under Section 302 of the IPC to life imprisonment.
Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had been in custody for 14 years and 9 months and during this period, he was never released on bail/parole/furlough. It was submitted that petitioner’s address was already verified and there were no grounds to apprehend that petitioner would abscond or jump parole if the same was granted to him. It was also stated that though the overall jail conduct of petitioner was unsatisfactory due to several punishments awarded to him inside the jail, no punishment was awarded to him after 2017.
Counsel for respondents submitted that the competent authority had rightly rejected the application for parole filed by petitioner, considering the seriousness of the offence committed by him as well as pendency of multiple cases against him. It was submitted that during pendency of the present writ petition before this Court, petitioner was convicted in another case involving offence under Section 302 of the IPC and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’), whereby he had brutally murdered Soumya Vishwanathan, a journalist. It was further submitted that petitioner was involved in sixteen other criminal cases of a serious nature, and he had been convicted in two cases pertaining to offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Thus, it was submitted that releasing petitioner on parole would be a serious threat to society and as per his criminal history and previous conduct in the jail, the present petition should be dismissed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the parole application filed by petitioner was rejected vide order dated 05-10-2023. The Court opined that though the nominal role reflected that the petitioner’s jail conduct since 2017 had remained satisfactory, between 2010 to 2017, petitioner had been awarded 41 major punishments in respect of various categories of offences committed by him within the jail premises. The Court further noted that petitioner was involved in twenty other criminal cases including cases pertaining to commission of offences of murder robbery, theft, and offences under the Arms Act, etc.
The Court noted that petitioner was convicted for offences under 302 of the IPC and MCOCA, vide judgment dated 18-10-2023 by the Trial Court, in a case where petitioner along with other persons had shot and killed a journalist, in September 2008, with the motive of committing robbery. The conviction of petitioner in the present case relates to a case in which he along with other persons had again in March 2009, abducted one woman named Jigisha Ghosh in a car and thereafter, they had robbed her off her belongings and had smothered her to death and then dumped her body in bushes near Surajkund, Faridabad.
The Court opined that there was a need to respect the rights of the convicts and the need to acknowledge the importance of being released on parole for several purposes, including for maintaining social and family. However, the Courts were bound to consider counterbalancing public interest while deciding the issue of grant of parole. The Court relied on Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55, wherein the Supreme Court had emphasized the need to maintain such a balance and had also underscored the importance of ensuring that habitual offenders who might demonstrate a propensity to commit offences after being released on parole or those who posed a potential threat to the law and order of society, might not be released on parole. It was also expressed that kindness towards convicts must not result in cruelty towards society.
The Court opined that parole in the present case was not sought on grounds of any exigency in petitioner’s family but for the purpose of maintaining social and family ties. The Court stated that no document or material was placed on record to show that petitioner was seeking parole for undergoing knee surgery.
The Court opined that petitioner was a habitual offender, who was involved in about twenty criminal cases and was convicted in two cases involving commission of offences such as murder and robbery, and the most recent conviction was in October 2023. Though his conduct inside jail had remained satisfactory for the last few years, the overall jail conduct was unsatisfactory owing to as many as 41 major punishments being awarded to him. Thus, after considering petitioner’s criminal history, his overall conduct inside the jail premises and the gravity of the offences committed by him, the Court dismissed the petition and held that it was not inclined to grant parole to petitioner at this stage.
[Ravi Kapoor v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 203, decided on 12-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Dimple Vivek, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel; Abhinav Kumar, Priyam Agarwal, Shivesh Kaushik, Advocates
