Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, father of the deceased victim Mandar Surlakar, challenged the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) constituted under the Goa Prison Rules, 2021, for premature release of three convicts (respondents 4-6). These convicts were found guilty by the Children's Court, Panaji, on 23 June 2014, for offences including kidnapping for ransom, murder, and destruction of evidence under Sections 120-B, 364-A, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003, and were sentenced to life imprisonment. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court on 4 March 2019, which, while confirming the sentence, directed that any remission orders be communicated to the victim's family 30 days before implementation. After a mercy petition was rejected by the Governor in 2020, the SSRB first recommended premature release in September 2020, but the State rejected it based on the convicting court's opinion. The convicts challenged this rejection; the High Court on 3 August 2022 held they had not completed the mandatory 14 years of actual imprisonment excluding parole, and directed reconsideration after completion. The Supreme Court upheld this view on 5 January 2023, ruling that parole period is excluded from the 14-year calculation. After completing 14 years, the SSRB again recommended release on 21 May 2025, but the State rejected the recommendation on 20 August 2025, relying on the convicting court's opinion. The convicts obtained High Court orders on 27 November, 4 December, and 17 December 2025, setting aside the rejection and directing fresh consideration, advising the State not to base its decision solely on the convicting court's opinion. The State reconsidered but again rejected the recommendation by separate letters in December 2025 and January 2026. The convicts filed fresh writ petitions, and on 6 August 2026, the High Court allowed those petitions, setting aside the rejections and directing the release of respondents 4-6. During the hearing of those petitions, the petitioner filed the present petition assailing the SSRB's recommendation itself. The court heard arguments; the petitioner contended that the heinous nature of the crime warranted denial of premature release. The State was represented, and the convicts' counsels defended the recommendation. The court, having earlier observed that the State could not rely solely on the convicting court's opinion and that the 14-year prerequisite had been satisfied, dismissed the petition, upholding the SSRB's recommendation and ordering the release of the three convicts.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Premature Release - Life Imprisonment - Indian Penal Code, 1860; Goa Prison Rules, 2021 - Completion of 14 years actual imprisonment excluding parole is mandatory prerequisite for consideration by SSRB - Supreme Court affirmed that parole period is excluded from actual sentence calculation - (Paras 6-8).
B) Criminal Procedure - Judicial Review - State's Rejection of SSRB Recommendation - High Court set aside State's rejection orders three times for relying solely on convicting court's opinion, directing reconsideration - Held that State must consider all relevant factors, not merely the convicting court's opinion - (Paras 9-11).
C) Constitutional Law - Right of Victim - Participation in Premature Release Proceedings - Goa Prison Rules, 2021 - Directed that victim's family be given 30 days' notice before implementation of remission orders to enable challenge - (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board for premature release of convicts serving life imprisonment in a heinous crime case is valid, and whether the State can reject such recommendation solely based on the convicting court's opinion.
Final Decision
Petition dismissed; SSRB's recommendation upheld; directed release of respondents 4-6.
Law Points
- Requirement of 14 years actual imprisonment excluding parole for premature release consideration
- State must not solely rely on convicting court's opinion
- SSRB recommendation based on reformative factors
- judicial review of premature release decisions available but limited
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (08) 43
Criminal Writ Petition No. 644 of 2026 (F)
Dr. Neela Gokhale, Amit S. Jamsandekar
Prasad Bhatlekar, Deepak Gaonkar, Akhil Govekar, Preetam Talaulikar, Nigel Fernandes, Mark Valadares
State of Goa, State Sentence Review Board, Inspector General of Prisons, Rohan P. Pai Dhungat, Shankar Tiwari, Jovito Ryan Dos Remedios Pinto
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board for premature release of three life convicts.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (father of deceased victim) sought quashing of SSRB's recommendation for premature release of respondents 4-6, and preventing their release.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the crime was heinous and the SSRB's recommendation was flawed; SSRB had not considered the gravity of the offence.
Previous Decisions
Earlier High Court orders set aside State's rejections of SSRB recommendations, directed reconsideration, and ultimately allowed convicts' writ petitions, directing their release.
Issues
Whether the SSRB's recommendation for premature release of convicts serving life sentence for kidnapping and murder was valid
Whether the State's rejection of SSRB's recommendation solely based on convicting court's opinion was justified
Whether the petitioner, as victim's father, has locus and grounds to challenge the recommendation
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Seriousness of crime warranted denial of premature release; SSRB recommendation was arbitrary.
Respondents 4-6: Completed 14 years actual imprisonment; State bound to consider release as per rules; State's rejections were based solely on convicting court's opinion which was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
Completion of 14 years actual imprisonment excluding parole is mandatory for premature release consideration; State cannot rely solely on convicting court's opinion; SSRB's recommendation is based on reformative factors and is subject to judicial review.
Judgment Excerpts
229. Though we are not inclined to direct that the convicts undergo prison sentences for the remainder of their natural lives without remission, we may not be misunderstood to have observed that the cases of convicts must be considered for remission no sooner they complete the statutory minimum sentence. All that we say at these stages is that this is a matter which is best left to the appropriate authority/executive. We have no doubt that the appropriate authority/executive will be mindful of the statutory checks applicable to such cases and will further take into account relevant considerations while eschewing irrelevant ones, if and when the occasion arises to consider the cases of the convicts for remission. We also clarify that if the parents or the relations of the victims are dissatisfied with the orders, if and when, made by the appropriate authority/executive, they will undoubtedly have the liberty to challenge such orders by taking out appropriate appeals seeking judicial review on all available grounds, including but not restricted to the grounds that the statutory checks and relevant considerations have been ignored and irrelevant considerations have been taken into account. In order to enable them to do so, we direct the appropriate authority/executive to make available copies of such orders to the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 44/2014 at least thirty days before such orders, if and when made, are actually implemented.
Procedural History
Children's Court convicted respondents on 23 June 2014 for offences under IPC and Goa Children's Act; sentenced to life imprisonment. High Court dismissed appeals on 4 March 2019, confirming sentence and directing that victim's family be notified 30 days before any remission order. Respondent 4’s mercy petition rejected by Governor in 2020. SSRB recommended premature release on 18 September 2020, but State rejected on 10 May 2021 based on convicting court's opinion. Convicts filed writ petitions; High Court on 3 August 2022 held they had not completed minimum 14 years actual imprisonment (excluding parole), directed fresh consideration after completion. Supreme Court upheld exclusion of parole period on 5 January 2023. After completing 14 years, SSRB again recommended release on 21 May 2025, but State rejected on 20 August 2025 relying on convicting court's opinion. High Court set aside rejection on 27 November, 4 December, and 17 December 2025, directing reconsideration. State again rejected on 18 December 2025, 1 January 2026, and 15 January 2026. Convicts filed fresh writ petitions (No. 94/2026, 174/2026, 109/2026); High Court allowed them on 6 August 2026, setting aside rejections and directing release of respondents 4-6. Petitioner (victim's father) filed present petition challenging SSRB's recommendation during hearing of those petitions. Court dismissed this petition.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 120-B, 364-A, 302, 201
- Goa Children's Act, 2003: 8
- Goa Prison Rules, 2021:
