Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vipin Banduji Kamble, was convicted for offences under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. He filed a writ petition seeking remission of three months under Government Resolution dated 03/06/2017, issued on the occasion of the 125th Birth Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. The jail authorities forwarded the proposal to the District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, who opined via communication dated 23/07/2021 that it would not be proper to grant remission. The petitioner contended that no reason was assigned except the seriousness of the offence, and he did not fall under the excluded categories under the Government Resolution. He had already undergone eight years of imprisonment with good conduct. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the offence was serious and the District Judge's opinion was correct. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel, Ms. Sneha Dhote, and the Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri M.K. Pathan. The court held that the opinion of the District Judge is not binding on the jail authorities, and the petitioner does not fall under the excluded categories. The court set aside the impugned communication and directed the jail authorities to consider the petitioner's case for remission afresh in accordance with the Government Resolution.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Remission of Sentence - Government Resolution - The court considered whether a convict under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act is entitled to remission under Government Resolution dated 03/06/2017. The District Judge opined that it would not be proper to grant remission, but the court held that the opinion of the District Judge is not binding on the jail authorities and the petitioner does not fall under the excluded categories. The court directed the jail authorities to consider the petitioner's case for remission afresh in accordance with the Government Resolution. (Paras 2-4) B) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Remission - The court examined the scope of remission under the Government Resolution and held that the seriousness of the offence alone is not a ground to deny remission if the convict is not in the excluded category. The petitioner had undergone eight years of imprisonment with good conduct. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Judge's opinion that it is not proper to grant remission to a convict under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act is binding on the jail authorities, and whether the petitioner is entitled to remission under Government Resolution dated 03/06/2017.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned communication dated 27/03/2021, and directed the jail authorities to consider the petitioner's case for remission afresh in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 03/06/2017.
Law Points
- Remission of sentence
- Government Resolution
- POCSO Act
- Indian Penal Code
- Prisoners' rights
- Judicial opinion not binding
