LexZAHID HUSSEIN AND ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D ZAHID HUSSEIN AND ORS. V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. MARCH !5, 2001 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] Constitution of India, J950-A11icle 32-Premature release of' life convicts-State Government's refusal release on recommendations of the RtvieHl Board---On appeal Held, life in1p1isonnient does not auto1natically expire at the end o/20 years ofimprisonrnent-Appropriate Goveniment may exercise its discretion to n~mit either the ivhole or pa11 of it-Revie1v Board did not consider the socio-econonzic condition of #ieir fa1nilies and lvhether there 1vould be any fruitful purpose in confining them £11 jail-Reasons given ,for rejecting the prayer for pren1ature release 1vere irrelevant and devoid of any substance-West Bengal Correctional Sen•ices Act, 1992-West Bengal Rules for Superintendence and Management of Jails--Rules 591(29)(4). West Bengal Rules for Superintendence and Management of .Tails- Rules 591(29)(4)-Prcmature release of life convicts-No provision for automatic release afte!_· co1npletion of 20 years of iinprisonment-However, E they have the right to put up their cases for consideration before the State Gove1nment-Conducl of convicts in jail and their potentiality to commit cri1nes after release are i1nportant considerations-West Bengal Con·ectional Services Act, 1992-Section 61. F Petitioners are life convicts who had served more than 18 years of G actual imprisonment. "t'his Court had previously directed the State Gov- ernment to reconsider their prayers for premature release under Rules 591(29)(4) of the West Beugal Rules for the Superintendence and Manage- ment of ,Jails. A Review Board considered their cases and refused to grant premature release as the police report was adverse, their potentiality to commit crime had not reduced, there was possibility of their regrouping 'vi th rd eased co-convicts, offences committed hy them were not individual acts hut had affected society at large, witnesses who had deposed against them were apprehensive and that one of the co-convicls who was granted premature release had been murdered in an encounter. Hence this petition H under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 442 ' ZAHID HUSSEIN v. STATE 443 Petitioners contended that they were entitled to be released as a A t matter of right under the Rules and Explanation to Section 61 of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 as their total period of imprison- ment exceeded 20 years . • Respondents contended that there was no such right available, that life imprisonment means imprisonment for entire life of the prisoner; and B that the appropriate Government only has the discretion whether to remit either whole or part of the sentence. Allowing the petitions, the Court HELD : 1. A sent•nce of imprisonment for life does not automati- c cally expire at the end of 20 years of imprisonment including remission, as a sentence of imprisonment for life means a sentence for the entire life of the prisoner unless the appropriate government chooses to exercise its discretion to remit either the whole or part of the sentence. [445-C-D] Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1961) 3 D SCR 440; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh and Ors., [1976] 3 SCC 470; Sohan I.al v. Asha Ram and Ors., [1981] 1 SCC 106 and Bhagirath v. Delhi Administration, [1985] 2 SCC 580, relied on. 2. Rules 591(29)(4) of the West Bengal Rules for Superintendence E "" and Management of Jails do not provide for automatic release of a life convict after he has completed 20 years of detention including remission. Under these sub-rules and the explanation to Section 61 of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 the only right which a life convict can be said to have acquired is a right to have his case put up by prison authorities F in time to the State Government for consideration for premature release and in doing so the government would follow the guidelines mentioned therein. (444-H; 445-A; BJ I.axman Naskar (l.ife Convict) v. State of WB. and Anr., [2000) 7 SCC 626, relied on. G 3. The conduct of the petitioners while in jail is an important factor to he considered as to whether they have lost their potentiality in commit- ting crime due to long period of detention. The views of the witnesses, who were examined during trial and the people of the locality cannot determine whether petitioners would be a danger to the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.