SATISH @ SABBE versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 21 · Decided: 30-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
21
SATISH @ SABBE
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7369 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938:
s.2 – Pre-mature release – Entitlement – Criteria – Held: Length
of sentence or gravity of the original crime can’t be the sole basis
for refusing pre-mature release – First-time offenders ought to be
liberally accorded a chance – Any assessment regarding predilection
to commit crime after release must be based on antecedents as well
as conduct of the prisoners in jail and not on his age or
apprehensions of the victims and witnesses – In the present case
three-factor evaluation of (i) antecedents (ii) conduct during
incarceration and (iii) likelihood to abstain from crime have been
given a complete go-by – The prisoners are directed to be released
on probation in terms of s.2, subject to their continuing good
conduct – The State shall be at liberty to impose conditions – The
order of pre-mature release can be recalled in the event of any future
misconduct or breach.
Sentence/Sentencing:
Reformative principles – A civilised society cannot be
achieved only through punitive attitude and vindictiveness – First
time offenders ought to be accorded chance to repent their past
and look-forward to a bright future.
Disposing of the Special Leave Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. Whilst it is true that society has a right to lead
a peaceful and fearless life, without free-roaming criminals
creating havoc in the lives of ordinary peace-loving citizens. But
equally strong is the foundation of reformative theory which
propounds that a civilised society cannot be achieved only
through punitive attitudes and vindictiveness; and that instead
public harmony, brotherhood and mutual acceptability ought to
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 21
21
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
be fostered. Thus, first-time offenders ought to be liberally
accorded a chance to repent their past and look-forward to a
bright future. [Para 13][28-D-E]
Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107 :
[1981] 1 SCR 1196 – relied on.
2. The Constitution of India through Articles 72 and 161,
embody these reformative principles by allowing the President
of India and the Governor of a State to suspend, remit or
commute sentences of convicts. Further, Section 432 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 streamlines such powers by
laying down procedure and pre-conditions for release. The only
embargo under Section 433-A of CrPC is against the release of
persons sentenced to life imprisonment till they have served at
least fourteen years of their actual sentence. The UP Prisoners
Release on Probation Act, 1938 also lays down the principles
upon which such decisions to release on probation are required
to be taken. [Paras 14 and 15][28-F-G]
3. It is no doubt trite law that no convict can claim
remission as a matter of right. However, in the present case,
the circumstances are different. What had been sought and
directed by this Court through repeated orders was not
premature release itself, but due application of mind and a
reasoned decision by executive authorities in terms of existing
provisions regarding premature release. Once a law has been
made by the appropriate legislature, then it is not open for
executive authorities to surreptitiously subvert its mandate.
Where the authorities are found to have failed to discharge their
statutory obligations despite judicial directions, it would then not
be inappropriate for a Constitutional Court while exercising its
powers of judicial review to assume such task onto itself and
direct compliance through a writ of mandamus. [Para 16][29-D-
F]
Swamy Sahraddanada v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13
SCC 767 : [2008] 11 SCR 93 – relied on.
4. In the present case, the three-factor evaluation of (i)
antecedents (ii) conduct during incarceration and (iii) likelihood
to abstain from crime, under Section 2 of the UP Prisoners
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
23
Release on Probation Act, 1938, have been given a complete
go-by. These refusals are not based on facts or evidence, and
are vague, cursory, and merely unsubstantiated opinions of State
authorities. [Para 17][29-G; 30-A]
5. Length of the sentence or the gravity of the original
crime can’t be the sole basis for refusing premature release. Any
assessment regarding predilection to commit crime upon release
must be based on antecedents as well as conduct of the prisone
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.