Blanket Denial Of Premature Release To Person Who Murdered Woman Or Child Affects Their Human Rights, Not Conducive To Welfare State: Kerala HC

“A blanket stance that a person who have murdered a woman or a child shall not be prematurely released de hors any other circumstances is not conducive to a welfare State” observed Justice Kauser Edappagath.

The 2022 Government Order had earlier been come considered by the Supreme Court in Joseph v State of Kerala (2023) where it was observed that such an exclusion of certain offences from remission turns the ideals of reformation on its head. The Apex Court further observed that statutory discretion of premature release cannot be fettered by self-created rules or policy.

The High Court was considering the writ petition filed by a life convict who had already undergone 22 years and 5 months of imprisonment. He was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for murdering a lady by drowning her in a pond and then robbing her gold chain. The first half-yearly Jail Advisory Committee Meeting of the year 2023 recommended the premature release of 16 life convicts including the petitioner. However, the petitioner's release was rejected on the sole ground that he brutally murdered a lady. This was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court.

The Court observed that the factors that have a bearing on the concept of reformation cannot be ignored merely because the accused murdered a woman. The petitioner was 18 years old when the murder was committed and now, he is 45. The probation report mentioned that the convict could lead a normal life after release by doing agricultural labour in his own village. The police authorities, the probation officer, the Superintendent of Prisons and the Jail Advisory Committee have recommended the premature release of the petitioner.

The Court observed that the remission policy is based on the principles of reformation.

“Premature release has been recognized as one of the facets of the human rights of prisoners. The remission policy manifests a process of reshaping a person who, under certain circumstances, has indulged in criminal activity and is required to be rehabilitated. It is based on the policy of reformation and intended to bring the convict back to society as a useful member.”

The Court observed that there are many factors to be considered while deciding on the premature release of a convict namely age of the accused at the time of commission of the offence, the period of imprisonment already undergone and nature of reformation that has come upon the convict, the circumstances in which the crime was committed, convict's attitude in prison, his penchant for personality development, conduct and acquisition of education qualifications. The Court held that State has to exercise its power of granting premature release under Section 432 Cr.PC after taking into account all relevant factors.

The Court was informed that the petitioner's name was again recommended for premature release and his name is recommended by the Jail Advisory Committee. The Court directed the State to consider the recommendation for premature release of the petitioner in the light of its observations within a period of 3 months.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Smruthi Sasidharan, V. P. Brijesh, Aswanthy Amby

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates P. Narayanan (Sr. PP), Sajju S. (Sr. GP)

Case No: WP(Crl.) 1215 of 2024

Case Tile: Balu v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 228