Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala summarized certain factors that the Courts considered while deciding convict’s period of sentence before remission could be sought.

What was the Background of Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the Trial Court found the appellant (the sole accused) guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC).
• After committing the above said act, the accused attempted to commit suicide.
• The Trial Court sentenced the accused to death for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
• When the matter went for confirmation before the High Court of Kerala, the High Court, while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence.
• The sentence of death was modified and reduced to imprisonment for life with a further direction that the accused shall not be released from prison for a period of 30 years including the period already undergone.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices B.R Gavai, K.V Vishwanathan and Sandeep Mehta observed that illustratively in the process of arriving at the number of years as the most appropriate for the case at hand, which the convict will have to undergo before which the remission powers could be invoked, some of the relevant factors that the courts bear in mind are:-

(a) The number of deceased who are victims of that crime and their age and gender.

(b) The nature of injuries including sexual assault if any.

(c) The motive for which the offence was committed.

(d) Whether the offence was committed when the convict was on bail in another case.

(e) The premeditated nature of the offence.

(f) The relationship between the offender and the victim.

(g) The abuse of trust if any.

(h) The criminal antecedents and whether the convict, if released, would be a menace to society.

• The Court also listed the positive factors like the accused's age, possibility of reformation, and remorseful conduct. Some of the positive factors are:
  • Age of the convict.
  • The probability of reformation of convict.
  • The convict not being a professional killer.
  • The socioeconomic condition of the accused.
  • The composition of the family of the accused.
  • The conduct expressing remorse.
• The Court further held that there is no straitjacket formulae for deciding the period of sentence. The Court, however, also noted that this discretion should be exercised on reasonable grounds.

What is Remission?

About:

• Remission generally refers to the reduction or mitigation of a sentence that has been imposed on a person who has been convicted of a crime and allows for the reduction of the period of imprisonment or other penalties based on numerous factors and considerations in other words, without affecting the nature of sentence it is just a reduction in period of sentence to be served.

Statutory Provision:

• Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(CrPC) deals with the power to suspend or remit sentences. It states that -

(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.

(2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.

(3) If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate Government may cancel the suspension or remission, and thereupon the person in whose favor the sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer, without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.

(4) The condition on which a sentence is suspended or remitted under this section may be one to be fulfilled by the person in whose favor the sentence is suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will.

(5) The appropriate Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with.

Provided that in the case of any sentence (other than a sentence of fine) passed on a male person above the age of eighteen years, no such petition by the person sentenced or by any other person on his behalf shall be entertained, unless the person sentenced is in jail, and—

(a) Where such petition is made by the person sentenced, it is presented through the officer in charge of the jail; or

(b) Where such petition is made by any other person, it contains a declaration that the person sentenced is in jail.

(6) The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also apply to any order passed by a Criminal Court under any section of this Code or of any other law, which restricts the liberty of any person or imposes any liability upon him or his property.

(7) In this section and in section 433, the expression “appropriate Government” means, —

(a) In cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred to in sub-section (6) is passed under, any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government.

(b) In other cases, the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced, or the said order is passed.

• 433A of CrPC deals with the restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases.
  • It states that notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.

Constitutional Provisions:

• Both the President and the Governor have been vested with sovereign power of pardon by the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
• Under Article 72 of the COI, the President has the power to grant pardon, reprieve, respite or remission of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence, on consultation with the Council of Ministers.
• Similarly, under Article 161 of the COI, these powers are conferred on the Governors of States.

Case Law:

• In the case of State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh (2007), the Supreme Court observed that, even though no convict has a fundamental right of remission, but the State in exercise of its executive power of remission must consider each individual case keeping in view the relevant factors. Further, the Court was also of the view that a right to be considered for remission must be held to be legal one.