NEW DELHI: Boosting his chances of securing premature release, Delhi high court Tuesday noted "demonstrable indicators of reformation" in Santosh Kumar Singh , convicted in the 1996 rape and murder case of DU law student Priyadarshini Mattoo.
Deciding a batch of petitions by murder convicts, including Singh, challenging the rejection of their plea for remission, HC asked the Sentence Review Board (SRB) to consider their applications afresh in next four months.
Justice Sanjeev Narula outlined "an element of reformation" in Singh and underlined that the nature of the original crime cannot, by itself, be the sole ground for denying premature release.
'Singh's conduct, reform can't be ignored'
Specifically, in Singh's case, the high court disapproved of SRB's comments that his conduct in jail is not necessarily a barometer of what he may do outside prison.
"In the present batch of cases, despite a prima facie reformative conduct and intent exhibited by the convicts, correlation to such material considerations is conspicuously absent," the court observed, faulting the SRB for rejecting the plea by Singh and others only due to the gravity, cruelty and perversity of the crime, and the objections raised by police and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The court found the argument that jail behaviour wasn't an indicator of a person's reformation "deeply problematic".
"While the heinousness of the offence and the views of investigating agencies are undoubtedly relevant, they cannot operate to the exclusion of other equally material considerations such as post-conviction conduct, demonstrated reform, educational and vocational achievements, and institutional assessment through placement in open prisons," the court noted.
It pointed out that SRB made "no effort" to evaluate the petitioner's "demonstrable reformative progress, including advanced educational qualifications, documented good conduct and participation in rehabilitation programmes."
Justice Narula also highlighted that Singh was at present lodged in an open prison, which entitles him to exit the prison complex daily between 8am and 8pm for gainful employment as a legal consultant.
"As noted above, the placement in such a prison category is a reflection of the positive reformative conduct of the convict. This is a critical indicator of reform which the SRB has failed to even acknowledge, let alone evaluate," it observed.
In an 82-page verdict, HC detected little indication the SRB "undertook any nuanced or individualised assessment of the petitioners' present psychological stability and emotional rehabilitation, behavioural disposition, institutional conduct or potential for reintegration. The apparent lack of depth in these foundational reports undermines the deliberative exercise that SRB is expected to undertake."
The court gave SRB three months to convene its next meeting to consider the plea of Singh and two other convicts.
"In doing so, SRB shall ensure due application of mind to each case and make a reasoned decision within a period of four months from the date of this judgment," the high court specified, laying down in detail what each official involved in the process must do as per guidelines of the jail manual.
It ordered the superintendent of the prison housing the convict to prepare a revised note with a clear recommendation and reflect the official's opinion about the prisoner's conduct, mental and physical health, participation in reformative activities and overall suitability for premature release.
Next, a senior police officer of appropriate rank shall prepare a report assessing the convict's conduct, antecedents, present risk profile and community impact in a balanced and evidence-based manner.
It further directed that the deputy commissioner of police/superintendent of police concerned must furnish a report as required under relevant rules. Where any objection to premature release is raised, it must be supported by cogent reasons, including any credible threat perception or risk of recidivism.
"Mere reiteration of the gravity of the original offence shall not suffice," the high court said, adding that inputs from the district probation officer shall also be submitted afresh.
"It must be a detailed and individualised inquiry into the desirability of the prisoner's release, addressing, on the basis of relevant material, the convict's family and social background, reintegration prospects, community acceptance and any demonstrated reformation of character or attitude," the court noted.
It further laid down guidelines for SRB while considering remission pleas of convicts. The board must also conduct psychological assessment of the convicts which was not done in this case, it pointed out.
Deciding a batch of petitions by murder convicts, including Singh, challenging the rejection of their plea for remission, HC asked the Sentence Review Board (SRB) to consider their applications afresh in next four months.
Justice Sanjeev Narula outlined "an element of reformation" in Singh and underlined that the nature of the original crime cannot, by itself, be the sole ground for denying premature release.
'Singh's conduct, reform can't be ignored'
Specifically, in Singh's case, the high court disapproved of SRB's comments that his conduct in jail is not necessarily a barometer of what he may do outside prison.
"In the present batch of cases, despite a prima facie reformative conduct and intent exhibited by the convicts, correlation to such material considerations is conspicuously absent," the court observed, faulting the SRB for rejecting the plea by Singh and others only due to the gravity, cruelty and perversity of the crime, and the objections raised by police and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The court found the argument that jail behaviour wasn't an indicator of a person's reformation "deeply problematic".
"While the heinousness of the offence and the views of investigating agencies are undoubtedly relevant, they cannot operate to the exclusion of other equally material considerations such as post-conviction conduct, demonstrated reform, educational and vocational achievements, and institutional assessment through placement in open prisons," the court noted.
It pointed out that SRB made "no effort" to evaluate the petitioner's "demonstrable reformative progress, including advanced educational qualifications, documented good conduct and participation in rehabilitation programmes."
Justice Narula also highlighted that Singh was at present lodged in an open prison, which entitles him to exit the prison complex daily between 8am and 8pm for gainful employment as a legal consultant.
"As noted above, the placement in such a prison category is a reflection of the positive reformative conduct of the convict. This is a critical indicator of reform which the SRB has failed to even acknowledge, let alone evaluate," it observed.
In an 82-page verdict, HC detected little indication the SRB "undertook any nuanced or individualised assessment of the petitioners' present psychological stability and emotional rehabilitation, behavioural disposition, institutional conduct or potential for reintegration. The apparent lack of depth in these foundational reports undermines the deliberative exercise that SRB is expected to undertake."
The court gave SRB three months to convene its next meeting to consider the plea of Singh and two other convicts.
"In doing so, SRB shall ensure due application of mind to each case and make a reasoned decision within a period of four months from the date of this judgment," the high court specified, laying down in detail what each official involved in the process must do as per guidelines of the jail manual.
It ordered the superintendent of the prison housing the convict to prepare a revised note with a clear recommendation and reflect the official's opinion about the prisoner's conduct, mental and physical health, participation in reformative activities and overall suitability for premature release.
Next, a senior police officer of appropriate rank shall prepare a report assessing the convict's conduct, antecedents, present risk profile and community impact in a balanced and evidence-based manner.
It further directed that the deputy commissioner of police/superintendent of police concerned must furnish a report as required under relevant rules. Where any objection to premature release is raised, it must be supported by cogent reasons, including any credible threat perception or risk of recidivism.
"Mere reiteration of the gravity of the original offence shall not suffice," the high court said, adding that inputs from the district probation officer shall also be submitted afresh.
"It must be a detailed and individualised inquiry into the desirability of the prisoner's release, addressing, on the basis of relevant material, the convict's family and social background, reintegration prospects, community acceptance and any demonstrated reformation of character or attitude," the court noted.
It further laid down guidelines for SRB while considering remission pleas of convicts. The board must also conduct psychological assessment of the convicts which was not done in this case, it pointed out.
You may also like
BJP to make formal announcement of new MP unit chief today
Weather: Clouds will rain with thunder and lightning in UP and Rajasthan, heat will trouble Delhi; Know the condition of other states..
'Nuclear blackmail can't stop us from responding': India in its message to US on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism
FS Misri meets Mauritian leadership, discusses strengthening bilateral ties
Delhi HC Stays INR 340 Cr Trademark Infringement Verdict Against Amazon
