The Supreme Court has held that governments should not be guided only by the severity of the offence committed by a convict to deny him premature release and the opinion of the trial court or the police based on judicial record of the case could not be the sole ground to reject a remission plea.

While deciding the petition filed by a convict who had spent 24 years in jail in a triple murder case and whose remission plea was rejected following a negative opinion from the trial judge who opposed his premature release on the ground that the offence committed by him was heinous, the apex court said the person was sentenced for the crime and had spent years in jail, and the decision on remission should not be taken on the basis of the same judicial record. It added that the remission policy should be guided by the "reformative" concept of justice and not be "retributive" and the focus should be on the "criminal” and not the "crime".

A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Prashant Kumar Mishra said a remission board should not entirely rely on the presiding judge or the police report and should take a view after getting a report prepared by a qualified psychologist after interacting/interviewing the convict.

“All this is not to say that the presiding judge’s view is only one of the factors that has no real weight, but instead, that if the presiding judge’s report is only reflective of the facts and circumstances that led to the conclusion of the convict’s guilt, and is merely a reiteration of those circumstances available to the judge at the time of sentencing, then the appropriate government should attach weight to this finding, accordingly. Such a report cannot be relied on as carrying predominance, if it focuses on the crime, with little or no attention to the criminal. The appropriate government should take a holistic view of all the opinions received (in terms of the relevant rules), including the judicial view of the presiding judge of the concerned court, keeping in mind the purpose and objective of remission," the bench said.

"In this court’s considered view, overemphasis on the presiding judge’s opinion and complete disregard of comments of other authorities, while arriving at its conclusion, would render the appropriate government’s decision on a remission application unsustainable. The discretion that the executive is empowered with in executing a sentence would be denuded of its content if the presiding judge’s view — which is formed in all likelihood, largely (if not solely) on the basis of the judicial record — is mechanically followed by the concerned authority, " the bench added.

(With inputs from agencies)