Court name – Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Judgement Name – Rohan Dhungat v. The State of Goa
Date- January 05, 2023
Judges/bench – M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
Introduction-
This special leave petition has been filed by the petitioner in response to feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with respect to the impugned judgement and order that has been passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in response to a criminal writ petition dismissing the said writ petition which holds that period of parole should be excluded from the period of sentence while considering the 14 years to actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release.
Background of the Case –
The original petitioners are all convicted and are undergoing life imprisonment. They all had applied for a premature release under the Goa Prison Rules, 2006 (referred as Rules,2006). The convicting court opined against such premature release as the offences committed were of grave nature. Based on the said opinion, the State Government cancelled the release. The convicts, aggrieved by the decision, preferred writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay challenging the decision of the convicting court and the State. They contended that all of them had completed 14 years in custody and were entitled to such premature release and the period of parole is not to be excluded from the period of sentence as per the Rules of 2006 while considering 14 years of imprisonment. The Hon’ble High Court has erred in relying on the Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006 to hold that since the period of release on parole is counted as remission, the same cannot be counted as part of sentence.
What is parole?
Parole is a temporary arrangement that is made to release the convict from imprisonment to fulfil particular circumstances. A specific reason is required for parole. It can be granted for any number of times. It may be conditional and lay down conditions and terms to be followed by the convict being released on parole.
Contentions of the Appellant-
One of the major contentions that have been pointed in this regard is that during the period of parole, the convict can be said to be under judicial custody as he/she is under the supervision and follows the rules and guidelines laid to be followed while being granted parole. Hence, the period of parole is not a remission of sentence but continues to be counted as a part of the sentence itself.
In the case of Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court held the view that if the period of parole is excluded from the calculation of the prison sentence, then there would end up being a miscalculation and the sentence period would end up being longer than prescribed for the conviction.
The period of parole can be regarded as a period of constructive custody and the convict is not actually free from the ropes of justice and is under constant supervision and control.
Further, the view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana. It was contended that since parole is a temporary arrangement allowing the convict to be detained for a temporary fixed period of time which is required to meet certain situations, the period of original detention is not interrupted by such parole and the total period of detention includes the period of such temporary arrangement.
The learned counsel for the convicts in the given case further argued that section 55 of the Prisons Act of 1894, indicates that the period of time when the prisoner is being taken away from the prison and remains lawfully confined, the period of parole falls under the provisions of the said section and cannot be excluded from the imprisonment period.
Contentions of Respondent-
As per the provisions of Rule 335 of the Rules,2006 the period of parole is to be considered as a period of remission and be excluded from sentence. An influential person may misuse such a period of parole and use it for selfish motives and come in the way of securing justice. The very purpose of imprisonment will be dismissed.
Parole is also not seen as a matter of right. It is a temporary situation that is intended to fulfil a given object and meet the necessary requirements of a situation. It is given as instances like death, marriage, illness and circumstances like these cannot be equated with being under imprisonment and should not be included under the imprisonment period.
Observations of the Court in the present case-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that the facts and circumstances in both the judgements that have been cited by the counsel for the convicts are very different from that of the present case. Being entirely distinct, the provisions and observations cannot be applied to the present case.
Inclusion of parole period in the imprisonment period defeats the purpose of imprisonment and creates a relaxed atmosphere. Period of parole cannot be equated to constructive custody.
Decision held-
SLP dismissed a period of parole to be excluded from sentence.
Opinion-
The intent of imprisonment is reformation and punishment of the convict. If the judiciary takes a relaxed view and provides for inclusion of such parole periods in the calculation of the period of sentence, the entire purpose for imprisonment stands redundant. The judges have rightly held that a liberal view like this provides for misuse of such provisions by influential people and destroys the ends of justice.
Writer’s Name: Piyushi Dhingra
College: Law Centre-1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi