Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan, was convicted for the murder of a 12-year-old child on 3rd January 2009 under FIR No.670 of 2007. He was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, along with terms under Sections 365 and 201 IPC. The High Court partly allowed his appeal on 16th July 2013, setting aside the conviction under Section 365 IPC, and the Supreme Court dismissed his further appeal on 15th September 2015, finalizing the conviction. On 26th May 2022, the appellant filed a representation seeking premature release under the 2002 Policy, having served 14 years of actual imprisonment. When no response was received, he filed a writ petition, which was disposed of on 16th August 2022 directing the prison authorities to decide the representation within three months. The representation was rejected on 20th October 2022 on two grounds: (i) the appellant is governed by the 2008 Policy, not the 2002 Policy; and (ii) under the 2008 Policy, he had completed only 13 years 7 months and 16 days of actual imprisonment as of 21st September 2022, falling short of the required 14 years. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the 2002 Policy or the 2008 Policy applies to his case. The appellant argued that the policy in force at the time of his conviction (2002 Policy) should govern, while the State contended that the 2008 Policy, which came into effect on 13th August 2008, applies. The Supreme Court analyzed the policies and held that the 2002 Policy was in force when the appellant was convicted on 3rd January 2009, and the 2008 Policy cannot be applied retrospectively to his disadvantage. The Court noted that the 2008 Policy itself states it supersedes the 2002 Policy, but such supersession cannot affect rights that crystallized under the earlier policy. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the rejection order, and directed the State to consider the appellant's remission application under the 2002 Policy within three months.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Remission - Applicability of Policy - Policy Regarding Release of Life Convicts 2002 vs Premature Release of Life Convicts 2008 - The question was whether a life convict sentenced in 2009 is governed by the 2002 Policy or the 2008 Policy for remission - The Court held that the policy in force at the time of conviction (2002 Policy) applies, and the subsequent 2008 Policy cannot be applied retrospectively to the disadvantage of the convict - The rejection of remission based on the 2008 Policy was set aside (Paras 2, 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's application for remission is governed by the 2002 Policy or the 2008 Policy of the State of Haryana
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The order dated 20th October 2022 rejecting the appellant's representation is set aside. The State of Haryana is directed to consider the appellant's application for remission under the 2002 Policy within three months.
Law Points
- Remission policy applicable at time of conviction governs eligibility
- subsequent policy cannot be applied retrospectively to deny remission
- policy interpretation must be beneficial to prisoner
