Meghalaya High Court: If Judge Who Had Passed Sentence Is No Longer Available, Opinion U/S. 432 CrPC To Be Given By Succeeding Sessions Judge

The Meghalaya High Court has held that under Section 432 CrPC, if the judge who had passed the sentence is no longer available, it would be proper for the opinion to be sought for or to be given by the succeeding Sessions Judge of the concerned court.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking relief of remission of sentence, primarily on the ground that he has completed more than 14 years of imprisonment as provided under Section 432 read with Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

The single bench of Justice W. Diengdoh observed, "......the authorities concerned has failed to seek the relevant report of the Superintendent of the Prison wherein the petitioner was interned and as a result, while seeking the opinion of the learned District Judge, he has also failed to give his opinion based on the factors which ought to have been considered, some of which are found stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as was done in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra). This, in turn, has resulted in the final decision rendered by the authority concerned to reject the prayer of the petitioner. The premise relied upon is therefore unfounded."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate B. Deb while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General N.D. Chullai.

Facts of the Case

The case registered under Section 382/302/201/34 IPC was launched at behest of a Taxi owner who complained that the accused people hired taxi and hadn't returned. After launch of investigation, the Petitioner along with four other accused persons were arrested and eventually made to stand trial for the offences under the IPC, including murder, that is, under Section 302 IPC. The Petitioner herein was convicted for having committed the offence of murder and theft. They were accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for varying periods and more specifically, to undergo imprisonment for life as regard the offence under Section 302 IPC. However, all the sentences are to run concurrently.

Out of a total of five accused persons, three of them, were let off by the Trial Court on benefit of doubt given to them. The Petitioner had sought relief of remission of sentence, primarily on the ground that he completed more than 14 years of imprisonment as provided under Section 432 read with Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an Application was thus filed before the relevant authority. Since there was no response to the said Applications, the Petitioner had filed two another application. With all three unanswered, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition. During the course of the hearing, the Petitioner came to know about the order passed by the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Prisons & Correctional Services whereby his Petition seeking remission was rejected, the same being based on the opinion of the District Judge who had opined that the remission should not be considered as the manner in which the crime was committed was brutal in nature and that the Petitioner had the potential to repeat the crime and secondly, that the crime was committed by a syndicate who are still on the run. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the present Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that firstly, the District Judge failed to appreciate the main ingredients required to be considered in a case of prayer for remission of sentence, since nothing has been reflected in his opinion as to the (i) antecedents of the petitioner (ii) his conduct in prison and (iii) the likelihood of him committing a crime, if released. It was his submission that the Petitioner is now in custody for about 19 years and during such time, there is no complaint whatsoever as far as his character and conduct is concerned. In fact, during his period of imprisonment, he had undergone a certificate course in handicraft and candle making and was given a Certificate by the WISE Social Service Centre, St Mary’s Convent, Shillong in this respect. The Counsel drew Court's attention to the fact he was also recognized in his efforts to help his fellow inmates in many areas for which the Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority had also recommended that he be appointed as one of the Para Legal Volunteers. He averred that the District Judge only described the manner in which the said crime was committed, and the same were not relevant factors to be considered as admittedly, the Petitioner was convicted for the crime committed. He further averred that there is no evidence or materials on record to indicate that there is a syndicate involved in the commitment of the crime.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the fact that the part dealing with remission of sentence is found in the Code only exhibits the intent of the lawmakers to adopt and apply the principles of reformation in the criminal jurisprudence of the Country. Even in a case of conviction for murder, the scope of reformation is extended, where more often than not, a sentence for commission of murder carries with it a term of life imprisonment.

The Court pointed out that the Petitioner had gone through the proper process seeking remission of his life sentence to be remitted for the remaining part of his sentence, inter alia, on the ground that he has completed more than 14 years of imprisonment.

It noted that the District Judge has referred to the findings of the then Trial Judge to arrive at his assessment.

"As noticed, what is mandated under Section 432 of the Code is that the opinion of the presiding judge of the court who had passed the sentence was required to be obtained. It can only mean the Sessions Judge, since a criminal case is always taken up by the Sessions Judge in a sessions triable cases such as the one in question. Even if the judge who had passed the sentence is no longer available as in the present case, it would be but proper for the opinion to be sought for or to be given by the succeeding Sessions Judge of the concerned court. The fact that the opinion was given by the District Judge, Shillong who has not stated that he has done so in his capacity as the Sessions Judge, would, in the considered opinion of this Court render any such opinion given as not tenable in law. Therefore, the relevant authority while passing the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 (supra) could not have relied on the opinion of the District Judge, such impugned order passed was on a wrong premise," the Court observed.

It stressed that when a case of application for remission of sentence is made is that certain factors are to be taken into account, which factors form part of the several guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in related cases, some of which are found at para 6 of the case of Laxman Naskar (Life Convict) v. State of W. B. & Anr.,

".......the opinion of the learned District Judge has reflected only the observations made based on the judgment of the Trial Court passed in the case, that too, only on the observations that the crime committed was done so in a brutal manner and furthermore, that there appears to be a syndicate at work which is still at large, meaning that the applicant/convict is also part of such syndicate, when no such observations or findings was ever made by the learned Trial Judge who has passed the initial judgment. This part of the observation being taken cognizance of by the relevant authority while considering the petition for remission has further caused prejudice to the petitioner’s cause...............what is observed in these judgments is that there is a common pattern of principles set out whenever a case of remission of sentence is under examination by the authorities concerned," the Court observed.

The Court thus concluded that the case of the Petitioner for grant of remission is required to be reviewed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Shri. Nabam Tai vs. The State of Meghalaya (2025:MLHC:198)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate B. Deb

Respondent- Additional Advocate General N.D. Chullai, Government Advocate R. Colney

Click here to read/ download Order

under Section

382/302/201/34 IPC.