The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Odisha government to decide on the remission plea of Ravindra Pal, also known as Dara Singh, who is serving a life sentence for the 1999 murder of Australian missionary Graham Stuart Staines and his two sons. The decision needs to be made within six weeks, as stated by a bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and K V Viswanathan.
Ravindra Pal has been in prison for over 24 years following the horrific incident in Keonjhar district, where Staines and his children were attacked and killed while sleeping in their station wagon, which was then set on fire. Singh, the main perpetrator behind the brutal crime, initially received a death sentence in 2003, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the Orissa High Court in 2005—a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2011.
In his plea for premature release, Singh expressed profound repentance for his actions, which he attributed to “youthful rage” and a lack of restraint influenced by “the brutal history of India.” His lawyer, Vishnu Shankar Jain, argued that Singh has served more than the minimum required 14 years as per the 2022 guidelines for the premature release of life convicts. Singh highlighted that he had never been released on parole, not even for his mother’s last rites, underlining his continued incarceration without any temporary relief.
The Supreme Court’s notice to the Odisha government last year came as a response to Singh’s plea, which now urges the state to consider his rehabilitation efforts and his pledge to contribute positively to society if released. Singh’s commitment to karmic philosophy was also mentioned as a basis for his changed outlook and desire for redemption.
Gladys Staines, the widow of the missionary who also received the Padma Shree in 2005 for her humanitarian work, has previously stated that she forgave her family’s killers and harbored no bitterness towards them. This sentiment of forgiveness has been a poignant element of the long-standing legal and emotional aftermath of the crime.
The Supreme Court’s directive reflects an ongoing legal process that weighs complex factors including the nature of the crime, the convict’s behavior in prison, the potential for societal reintegration, and the broader implications of remission on public and judicial perceptions of justice.
