- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Praful Sureshbhai Koli Patel v. Jail Superintendent
Factual and Procedural Background
Praful Sureshbhai Koli Patel was tried in the 2 Fast Track Court, Valsad, under Sessions Case No. 21 of 2005 for murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court on 17 February 2006. The convict appealed, but this Court dismissed the appeal on 12 March 2013. The incident occurred in 2004, and the convict has served over fourteen years in prison. The State Government is considering remission of his sentence. The Jail Superintendent of Navsari Sub Jail sought this Court’s opinion on granting remission, prompting the current matter.
The incident arose from frequent quarrels between the convict and the deceased, Vikas Ishwarbhai Patel, both employed at nearby parking plots. The convict allegedly assaulted the deceased with a scissor, resulting in the deceased's death at the scene.
There is no indication that the convict is a habitual offender or poses a threat to society if released. The incident was due to personal rivalries.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the convict deserves to be remitted under the provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
- What is the appropriate procedure and considerations for granting remission in cases of life imprisonment as per established legal principles and precedents.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452 | The necessity of obtaining the opinion (with reasons) of the Presiding Judge of the convicting or confirming Court before granting remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C.; remission must be given on a case-by-case basis, not wholesale. | The Court referred to this precedent to emphasize procedural and substantive checks on remission, stressing that remission for life imprisonment must be carefully considered and not arbitrarily granted. |
| Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan (2016) 7 SCC 1 | Clarification that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire natural life unless curtailed by remission validly granted under Section 432 Cr.P.C. or constitutional powers; remission is a privilege, not a right. | The Court relied on this ruling to affirm that remission for life convicts is a matter of executive discretion exercised under legal safeguards, reinforcing the procedural framework for remission. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the facts of the case, noting the nature of the offence, the relationship between the convict and deceased, and the period already served by the convict. It observed the absence of any indication that the convict is a habitual offender or a threat to society. The Court extensively referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sangeet v. State of Haryana and Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan, which prescribe that remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C. requires the opinion of the convicting or confirming Court and must be granted on a case-by-case basis. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the convict’s life sentence is eligible for remission, subject to the State Government’s lawful exercise of discretion.
Holding and Implications
The application for remission of the life imprisonment sentence is allowed.
The Court held that the sentence of life imprisonment deserves to be remitted considering the circumstances of the case, the conduct of the convict, and the time already served. The State Government is authorized to act accordingly in accordance with the law. This decision directly affects the parties by permitting remission but does not establish any new legal precedent beyond applying existing Supreme Court rulings on remission procedures.
J.B. Pardiwala, J.:— Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, the learned A.P.P. waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the State.
2. One Praful Sureshbhai Koli Patel was put on trial in the Court of the 2 Fast Track Court, Valsad in the Sessions Case No. 21 of 2005 for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. Praful Patel came to be convicted by the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 17 February 2006 and he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The convict, thereafter, challenged the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court by preferring the Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2006 in this Court. The appeal preferred by the convict came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 12 March 2013. It appears that the incident is of the year 2004. By now, the convict has undergone more than fourteen years of imprisonment. The State Government is considering to grant the benefit of remission to the convict. In such circumstances, the Jail Superintendent, Navsari Sub Jail has addressed a letter dated 15 November 2019 to the Registrar of this High Court seeking the opinion of this Court as regards the grant of benefit of remission to the convict. That is how the matter has been placed before us.
3. It appears that the convict and the deceased namely Vikas Ishwarbhai Patel were employed in the parking plots, named Sai Parking Plot and Shanti Parking Plot respectively. There were frequent quarrels between them regarding parking of the trucks in the said parking plots, which, ultimately, led to the occurrence of the incident in question. It was also alleged that the convict assaulted the deceased with a scissor used for cutting clothes at Vapi Udhyognagar, Near Telephone Exchange situated near shopping centre. The deceased died on the spot.
4. There is nothing to indicate that the convict is a hardcore criminal. There is nothing to indicate that if, ultimately, release from jail, he would prove to be a menace to the people at large or prove to be a threat to the law and order situation. The incident had occurred on account of some rivalries with the deceased.
5. The Supreme Court, in the case of Sangeet v. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 2 SCC 452, has observed that:
“Before actually exercising the power of remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C. the appropriate Government must obtain the opinion (with reasons) of the Presiding Judge of the convicting or confirming Court. Remission can, therefore be given only on a case-by-case basis and not in a wholesale manner”
6. We quote the relevant observations of the Supreme Court made in the case of the Sangeet (supra) as contained in paras 77.5, 77.6, 77.7 thus:
“77.5. The grant of remissions is statutory. However, to prevent its arbitrary exercise, the legislature has built in some procedural and substantive checks in statue. These need to be faithfully enforced.
77.6. Remission can be granted under Section 432 CrPC in the case of a definite term of sentence. The power under this Section is available only for granting “additional” remission, that is, for a period over and above the remission granted or awarded to a convict under the Jail Manual or other statutory rules. If the term of sentence is indefinite (as in life imprisonment), the power under Section 432 CrPC can certainly be exercised but not on the basis that life imprisonment is an arbitrary or notional figure of twenty years of imprisonment”
77.7. Before actually exercising the power of remission under Section 432 CrPC the appropriate Government must obtain the opinion (with reasons) of the Presiding Judge of the convicting or confirming Court. Remissions can, therefore, be given only on a case by case basis and not in a wholesale manner.”
7. Having regard to the dictum as laid by the Supreme Court in the above referred decision, the matter has been referred to us so that we can express our opinion whether the sentence of life imprisonment deserves to be remitted or not.
8. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan, (2016) 7 SCC 1, per majority view, held that:
“Life imprisonment in terms of Sections 53 read with 45 IPC means the entirety of the life of the prisoner unless it is curtailed by remissions validly granted under Section 432 CrPC or Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution. A life convict only has the right to claim remission, etc. as provided under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution to be exercisable by the President and the Governor of the State or under Section 432 Cr.P.C.”
9. Having regard to the genesis of the occurrence, the period undergone by the convict in jail and his overall conduct while serving life imprisonment, we are of the view that the sentence of life imprisonment deserves to be remitted. The State Government may act accordingly to do the needful in accordance with law.
10. One copy of this order may be furnished to Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, the learned A.P.P. for its onwards communication. One copy of this order may also be forwarded to the Jail Superintendent, Navsari Sub Jail.
11. With the above, this application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute.
Alert