BIRDHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) William Shakespeare, in his play The Merchant of Venice wrote, "Justice should be tampered with mercy." The legal arena cannot be like a sterilised operating theater. Instead, it must be like a warm hearth in a cold winter exuding the fragrance of compassion and understanding. It is with this understanding that one of the principles of criminal law is to condemn the crime, but not the criminal. Theology may doubt the goodness of man; criminal law believes in his goodness. Thus, the goal of criminal justice delivery system is not just to punish an offender, to throw him out of the Garden of Eden, but more importantly to reform him to the point where he can be brought back into the society. While dealing with the present case, we cannot lose sight of the underlying philosophy of criminal justice delivery system.

(2.) These two different writ petitions relate to the premature release of Birdha from the Central Jail Jaipur. While the first petition is a letter petition sent by Birdha from the Jail, the second petition has been filed by his wife, Smt. Pyari Devi. Thus, these two petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

(3.) Admittedly, the Petitioner was convicted for offence of rape and murder of a minor girl - a most heinous crime in any civilised society. For his loathsome crime, he was convicted and sentenced for life. He has already, spent twenty-seven years of his life behind the stonewalls of the Central Jail Jaipur. During this long period of incarceration, he has been let out on parole on five occasions. To his credit, during these furloughs he has not disturbed the even tempo of life outside the jail. He has religiously followed the conditions of the parole. Quietly he has gone to his village; peacefully, he has returned to the jail. His conduct, according to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur, has been satisfactory. In fact, the Superintendent has recommended his release on permanent parole and even for his premature release. His recommendation has been further supported by the report of the social welfare officer. Yet, the Advisory Committee in its meeting on 20.10.03 has declined to release the petitioner on permanent parole and has also declined to release him prematurely. Hence, the petitioner has sent this letter petition to the court pleading for either being released on permanent parole, or for being released prematurely.