RAJENDRA NARANG Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the petitioner/ convict, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life upon being convicted for commission of offence under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C., for following reliefs:-

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, is that vide judgment dtd. 30/3/2006, passed by 14th Upper Sessions Judge, FTC Raipur in Sessions trial No.265/2005, petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000.00 with default stipulation. Criminal Appeal No.18/2007 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 14/2/2013. In the year 2020, petitioner filed an application (Annexure P1) under Sec. 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for brevity 'the Code') for grant of remission. Pursuant to said application, opinion from the concerned Presiding Judge of the Court was sought by the Jail Authority vide Annexure P2. Vide letter dtd. 15/7/2020 (Annexure P3), learned Presiding Judge gave negative opinion. Vide letter dtd. 21/11/2020 (Annexure P4) the Jail Authority requested the concerned Presiding Judge to reconsider his opinion, which was negated by the learned Presiding Judge, vide memo dtd. 18/1/2021. Thereafter, matter of petitioner for grant of remission was referred by the Superintendent Jail, Raipur to the Director General, Jail and Correctional Services, Raipur (Annexure P5), who forwarded the same to Government, but, since learned Presiding Judge has given negative opinion for grant of remission to the petitioner, vide memo dtd. 4/10/2021 it was informed by the Upper Secretary, Government of C.G. Home (Jail) Department that since Presiding Officer has not given positive opinion, remission application of detainee has not been allowed by the Government. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Return has been filed by State Authority stating inter alia that looking to the gravity of offence, which the petitioner has committed, learned Presiding Judge has declined to give positive opinion for premature release of the petitioner and due to such opinion, his application was dismissed by the appropriate Government.