Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking premature release from prison, as he had suffered incarceration for more than 21 years with remission after his conviction, Girish Kathpalia, J., stated that the composition of Sentence Review Board (‘SRB’) needs be re-examined by the authorities concerned so as to make the exercise of sentence review meaningful and commensurate to the laudable philosophy of reformation of criminal.
The Court further directed the State to consider afresh the petitioner’s case for premature release as per the policy framed by the Delhi Government in 2004 (‘2004 policy’) and the parameters laid down and discussed in the present case. The Court further suggested that the competent authority should deliberate upon the composition of Sentence Review Board and reconstitute the same and should also further finetune the 2004 policy on the lines discussed in the present case.
Background
The petitioner had filed a petition seeking to direct his premature release from prison based on the 2004 policy, as he had already undergone prison sentence for a period more than 18 years without remission and more than 21 years with remission. Earlier, the SRB took up petitioner’s case for premature release on multiple occasions and rejected the same.
Thereafter, the petitioner along with others challenged the decision SRB through a writ petition before the present court, wherein it was held that case of the petitioner has to be governed by the policy of 2004 so the State was directed to consider case of the petitioners of that writ petition (which included the present petitioner) afresh regarding their premature release.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition, which was disposed of as withdrawn, granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the present Court. Hence, the present petition was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that in the present case, there was nothing on record to suggest proper application of mind by SRB. The Court noted that the SRB members appointed in their official capacity did not personally attend the meeting and rather send their representatives, owing to their other heavy official engagements. The SRB deals with human beings, who were deprived of liberty for a long span of time due to their aggression which led to criminality. The approach of the SRB ought to be reformation oriented and not a routine disposal/statistic dominated exercise. The composition of SRB needs be re-examined by the authorities concerned to make the exercise of sentence review meaningful and commensurate to the laudable philosophy of reformation of criminal.
The Court suggested that the composition of SRB must include the judicial officer concerned, who sentenced the prisoner under consideration. Further, the composition of SRB must include an eminent sociologist and a criminologist with missionary zeal and sensitivity towards reformation of the prisoner under consideration. Another vital component of SRB could be the Jail Superintendent concerned, who had the best opportunity to watch the reformative growth or otherwise of the prisoner concerned from close quarters. The Court stated that to ensure meaningful exercise of sentence review, the composition of SRB should be based on nexus between the jail performance of the prisoner and the job profile of the member concerned, instead of just high official designation of the member.
The Court stated that SRB should also make a graded response in the sense that depending upon the scale of observed reformation of the prisoner, if the stage was considered a bit early for premature release, the prisoner could be shifted initially to semi-open prison, followed by open prison. That gradual movement would give a taste of liberty to the prisoner, which would encourage him to push for his reformation and that would be a meaningful punishment. Further, the SRB could also consider premature release of the convict/prisoner with necessary directions in surveillance over specific period, directing the prisoner/convict to report before the local police on a weekly basis for specific period. The binary of grant or denial of premature release had to be discarded.
The Court stated that the in the present case, the premature release was declined to the petitioner on the grounds of gravity and perversity of the crime. The Court stated that of course, abduction for ransom, followed by murder was indeed gruesome and needed to be dealt with sternly. But then, one also could not ignore that the said crime took place way back in 2001 and the Trial Court, by way of detailed order on sentence found it not a case which would call for imposing death penalty, so life imprisonment was imposed.
The Court stated that the petitioner had already undergone the sentence of incarceration for more than 18 years without remission and more than 21 years with remission. Not that due to passage of time, the inherent perversity of the crime per se diminishes in any manner. However, for reformative sentencing, such long incarceration, as already suffered by the petitioner, the perversity must be visualised as faded. The wound suffered by the kith and kin of the deceased, which was fresh in the year 2001, would have by now reduced to scab, as time heals all wounds.
Regarding the possibility of the petitioner committing crime again, the Court stated that merely because he had not physically attained old age, it could not be said that there were higher chances of his committing crime again. Bodily strength had no nexus with the propensity to commit crime. The propensity to commit crime had to be analysed by examining reformative ascension of the prisoner as reflected from cogent material.
The Court noted that the petitioner had filed, six Commendation Certificates issued by the jail and other authorities to him. The Court stated that the policy of 2004, made it clear that irrespective of such certificates, every convicted prisoner undergoing life sentence had to be considered for premature release after serving sentence of 14 years without remissions. The Commendation Certificates were guiding tools for SRB in exercise of discretion to grant premature release.
Thus, in the overall circumstances of this case, the Court stated that it had no doubt that the petitioner stands substantially reformed and could become a useful member of the society. Keeping the petitioner in jail for further period would not yield any fruitful result towards his reformation or to the society at large. The Court further directed the State to consider afresh the petitioner’s case for premature release in cases registered under Section 302/120-B/364-A/384/186/353/307/419 of Penal Code, 1860 as per the policy of the year 2004 and the parameters laid down and discussed above. The Court stated that the fresh consideration of the petitioner’s case should be concluded within four weeks, and the decision should be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.
The Court specifically directed that in case, the SRB did not find the present case to be a fit case to grant premature release to the petitioner, the decision of SRB should be worded in a manner that one could decipher as to what worked in the mind of SRB. The Court further suggested that the competent authority should deliberate upon the composition of SRB and reconstitute the same and should also further finetune the policy of 2004 on the lines discussed in the present case.
[Vikram Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P(CRL) 3429 of 2024, decided on 11-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Arundhati Katju, Senior Advocate with Ali Chaudhary, Shristi Borthakur and Abuzar Ali, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for State with Sushant Bali, Avita Bhandari, Arjit Sharma and Nikunj Bindal, Advocates with Inspector Shrichand and SI Anil, PS Seemapuri.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
