The High Court of Meghalaya has set aside a rejection of a plea for remission by a prisoner serving a life sentence for murder, ruling that the authorities had not followed guidelines properly in considering the convict’s request.
The case goes back to 2005 when a tourist taxi driver was murdered and the vehicle stolen. One Nabam Tai of Arunachal Pradesh and one Jatin Rabha had been convicted of murder and theft, while three other suspects were acquitted.
After completing more than 14 years of his life sentence, Tai sought remission, as is permitted. However, his plea was subsequently rejected by the state government based on the opinion of the District Judge who had opined that the remission should not be considered as the manner in which the crime was committed was brutal in nature and that the petitioner had the potential to repeat the crime and, secondly, that the crime was committed by a gang, the other members of which are still on the run.
The prisoner’s lawyer argued that Tai has become something of a model prisoner. He has in his time in jail undergone a certificate course in handicrafts and candle making and was given a certificate by the WISE Social Service Centre, St Mary’s Convent, in this respect. The counsel drew the court’s attention to the fact he was also recognised in his efforts to help his fellow inmates in many areas, for which the Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority had also recommended that he be appointed as a paralegal volunteer.
A single judge bench comprising Judge W Diengdoh had two major problems with the denial of Tai’s petition for remission.
Firstly, Judge Diengdoh noted that an opinion on the petition should have been considered by the trial judge, which would mean the Sessions Judge, as criminal cases are always taken up by the Sessions Judge in a sessions triable case such as this one.
“Even if the judge who had passed the sentence is no longer available as in the present case, it would be but proper for the opinion to be sought for or to be given by the succeeding Sessions Judge of the concerned court. The fact that the opinion was given by the District Judge, Shillong, who has not stated that he has done so in his capacity as the Sessions Judge, would, in the considered opinion of this court render any such opinion given as not tenable in law,” Justice Diengdoh said.
The authorities concerned also “failed to seek the relevant report of the Superintendent of the Prison wherein the petitioner was interned and as a result, while seeking the opinion of the learned District Judge, he has also failed to give his opinion based on the factors which ought to have been considered,” Judge Diengdoh stated.
Instead, the District Judge’s opinion “reflected only the observations made based on the judgment of the Trial Court passed in the case, that too, only on the observations that the crime committed was done so in a brutal manner and furthermore, that there appears to be a syndicate at work which is still at large, meaning that the applicant/convict is also part of such syndicate, when no such observations or findings was ever made by the learned Trial Judge who has passed the initial judgment. This part of the observation being taken cognizance of by the relevant authority while considering the petition for remission has further caused prejudice to the petitioner’s cause.”
Judge Diengdoh further ordered that no fresh plea for remission has to be made but that the authorities consider the original plea “following due procedure”. The ruling was made on March 24 and the judge recommended that the plea be considered within 45 days.
