Introduction

The case of RANI @ MANJU v. STATE (GOVT.) OF NCT OF DELHI (2024 DHC 279) adjudicated by the Delhi High Court on January 8, 2024, addresses the critical issue of premature release of convicts under state remission policies. The petitioner, Rani @ Manju, was convicted for multiple offenses including kidnapping under Sections 343, 364A, 365, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following her conviction, an application for premature release was rejected by the Sentence Review Board (SRB), prompting her to challenge the decision in the High Court.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan, scrutinized the SRB's decision to reject Rani @ Manju's application for premature release. The petitioner contended that the SRB improperly applied the older Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 instead of the more liberal State Government Policy dated 16.07.2004. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Joseph vs. State of Kerala, the High Court held that remission policies prevailing at the time of consideration of premature release applications should be applied, even if they are more liberal than those in effect at the time of conviction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the SRB's rejection and directed a fresh consideration of the petitioner's case under the appropriate policy.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references key Supreme Court decisions to underpin its reasoning:

• Joseph vs. State of Kerala: Established that the remission policy in force at the time of considering a premature release application should govern, allowing for more liberal policies to take precedence.
• Surender Kumar @ Raja vs. State and Malleshi vs. State of Karnataka: Interpreted Section 364A IPC, emphasizing that threats to cause death or hurt during kidnapping complete the offense under this section.
• P.K. Narayanan vs. State of Kerala and Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of H.P.: Clarified the concept of conspiracy, emphasizing the need for cogent and sufficient evidence to substantiate such claims.
• Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj vs. State of the NCT of Delhi & Ors: Reinforced that courts cannot indirectly perform administrative functions contrary to statutory provisions.

Legal Reasoning

The court identified that the SRB erred by applying the older prison rules instead of the current state remission policy. It emphasized that administrative bodies must adhere to the policy in effect at the time of the application's consideration, especially if it is more lenient. The High Court observed that the SRB's decision was "stereotyped" and lacked consideration of the specific factors outlined in the 2004 policy. By disregarding these factors, the SRB's decision was deemed a "manifest error."

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that remission boards must apply the latest and more liberal policies when evaluating premature release applications. It ensures that convicts are assessed based on current standards and policies, promoting fairness and consistency in the application of remission laws. Future cases involving premature release will likely reference this judgment to advocate for the appropriate application of current remission policies over older regulations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Premature Release

Premature release allows convicts to be released from prison before completing their full sentence, based on good conduct, rehabilitation prospects, and other factors outlined in remission policies.

Sentence Review Board (SRB)

The SRB is a body that reviews and makes decisions on applications for sentence reductions, including premature releases, based on established policies and the convict's conduct.

Section 364A IPC

This section deals with kidnapping or abduction for ransom, where the offender threatens to cause death or hurt to the victim, thereby completing the offense.

Conspiracy

In legal terms, conspiracy involves an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. The courts require substantial evidence to prove that such an agreement existed.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court's decision in RANI @ MANJU v. STATE (GOVT.) OF NCT OF DELHI underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that remission policies are applied accurately and justly. By mandating the application of the current and more lenient 2004 remission policy over the older 2018 prison rules, the court has reinforced the importance of administrative bodies adhering to the most favorable legal frameworks for convicts seeking premature release. This judgment not only impacts the petitioner but also sets a significant precedent for future cases, promoting a more humane and rehabilitative approach within the criminal justice system.