Purpose Of Punishment Not 'Endless Incarceration': Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Life Convict Seeking Premature Release
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a man, convicted for life in 2003 rape and murder case of an 8 year old, whose plea for premature release was rejected by the Sentence Review Board (SRB).
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that while the crime committed by the convict was gruesome, but he was awarded life imprisonment for the same and had already spent 24 years in jail.
“The punishment for a crime also must have its limits, lest the punishment in itself became wrong, being non-productive. Purpose of punishment has to be reformation of the criminal and not an endless, meaningless incarceration,” the Court said.
The convict sought his premature release and challenged the findings of SRB in its meetings held in August and September last year.
It was the convict's case that he had undergone imprisonment for more than 20 years eight months as on date without remission and for a period of more than 24 years with remission.
It was submitted that his case for pre-mature release was considered by the SRB in terms with the policy of 2004 but the decision was not sustainable in law on account of the same being completely unreasoned and mechanical.
The prosecution fairly expressed its inability to support the impugned decision, on the ground that it was not based on relevant factors.
Justice Kathpalia noted that the SRB considered the reports received from police and social welfare department, but neither those reports were placed on record nor a gist of the same was narrated in the impugned decision.
“Even the policy of 2004 has various parameters on which the case of a convict has to be tested. From the impugned decision, it is not possible to make out as to whether those parameters were applied or not,” the Court said.
The prosecution submitted that if the impugned decision would be set aside, the case of the convict shall be considered afresh in the next meeting of the SRB, which is scheduled within next four months.
Accordingly, the Court ordered:
“In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 accepting the recommendations of meetings dated 30.08.2024 and 18.09.2024 of SRB qua the petitioner is set aside and respondent no.1 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner by convening SRB meeting within four months from today.”
Title: SAGIR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS