In a pivotal decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court directed the release of Parmeshwar @ Parsiya @ Shiva, a prisoner serving life imprisonment, under the remission provisions. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, emphasized the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and natural justice in exercising the discretionary power of remission under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Parmeshwar @ Parsiya, was convicted under Sections 395, 396, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code in 2009 and sentenced to life imprisonment. Over the course of his incarceration, he completed 19 years, 8 months, and 17 days of actual imprisonment, earning an additional 5 years, 6 months, and 23 days of remission, thereby surpassing 25 years in prison.
In 2021, his application for remission was rejected by the State Government. A subsequent writ petition (WPCR No. 762 of 2022) led to the High Court remitting the matter for fresh consideration. However, his renewed application was denied on procedural grounds, primarily due to a negative opinion from the trial court. The petitioner challenged this rejection, citing non-compliance with principles established by the Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India (2000) and subsequent cases.
Key Legal Issues
1. Discretionary Power under Section 432 CrPC: The petitioner argued that the authorities had failed to exercise their discretionary power reasonably and instead relied solely on the trial court’s negative opinion, in contravention of Supreme Court guidelines.
2. Violation of Constitutional Principles: It was contended that the rejection lacked adherence to Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.
3. Consideration of Remission Guidelines: The petitioner pointed to the lack of application of Supreme Court directives, which mandate evaluating factors like the convict’s behavior, societal impact of the offense, and family conditions.
Court’s Observations
The Bench observed that the rejection of remission solely on the basis of the trial court’s negative opinion was unsustainable. Referring to Laxman Naskar and the recent Supreme Court ruling in Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar vs. State of Gujarat (2024), the court reiterated that:
– A convict cannot claim remission as a matter of right, but their case must be considered fairly and in accordance with established legal principles.
– The decision to grant or deny remission must be informed, rational, and devoid of arbitrariness, meeting the standards of Articles 14 and 21.
– Conditions imposed for remission must be reasonable and justifiable.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench underscored: “The power to remit a sentence under Section 432 CrPC is discretionary but must stand the scrutiny of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Judgment
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated July 20, 2023, rejecting the remission application. It directed the release of the petitioner in accordance with the law, subject to terms and conditions determined by competent authorities.
The Court further emphasized that the decision to grant remission must serve justice and consider societal and individual rehabilitative needs, while aligning with the constitutional mandate of equality and liberty.
Case Details
Case No.: WP(CR) No. 504 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Legal Representation
– For the Petitioner: Advocate Rajesh Kumar Jain
– For the State: Government Advocate Sangharsh Pandey
