New Delhi, Aug 31 The Delhi High Court on Monday prematurely released a double-murder convict serving a life sentence after incarceration for 20 years.
Justice Girish Kathpalia said his decision was “rooted” in the philosophy propagated by ancient texts such as the Rig Veda, Kautilya’s Arthashastra and the Dandashastra, as he underscored that reformation of criminals, and not deterrence or retribution, was more productive for the larger goals of peace in society.
The convict, who assailed the Sentence Review Board’s (SRB) 2025 decision rejecting his plea for premature release, had fatally stabbed the two deceased in December 2004 and stolen their belongings.
A trial court convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment in 2010.
Rejecting the state's objection that the petitioner-convict committed a “gruesome” offence, Justice Kathpalia said he was 19 years old at that time, and by now, the wound suffered by the kith and kin of the deceased persons would have reduced to a scab.
The court noted that the petitioner has completed his graduation and his 'social investigation report' explicitly recorded that he was determined to reintegrate fully into his community and family, ensuring their socio-economic stability and well-being.
It also considered that the petitioner was admittedly not a habitual or an occupational criminal, which was a vital factor in determining the possibility of his reformation and grant of premature release.
“Of course, the double murder, followed by theft, is indeed a serious crime. But one also cannot ignore that the said crime took place way back in 2004 and the trial court by way of reasoned order did not find it a fit case to award death penalty, so life imprisonment was awarded,” the high court said in the judgement.
“The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than 20 years. Not that due to passage of time the inherent perversity of the crime per se diminishes in any manner, but for meaningful sentencing, on account of such long incarceration as suffered by the petitioner, the perversity must be visualised as faded,” it said.
The court held that the petitioner deserved to come out of jail now instead of suffering any further “unnecessary and unproductive incarceration”.
The court ruled that the SRB's decision to reject the plea for premature release was legally unsustainable on account of non-application of mind, observing that the authorities opted to ignore “vital circumstances” in a mechanical manner, if not biased with "criminophobia"
It also refused to remand the matter to the SRB for fresh consideration, stating that the question of the petitioner's premature release was repeatedly considered by the authorities in an unscientific and casual manner.
Emphasising that punishment, to be scientific, has to have an end during the lifetime of a convict, the court also expressed displeasure at the working of the SRB.
It said despite an earlier judicial order, the authorities “opted to remain stoically intransigent and disinterested in streamlining the SRB working and composition”.
In its judgement, the court observed that the fact that the petitioner was arrested from the Indo-Nepal border while trying to flee had no relevance at this stage.
Also, merely because he is now in his 40s, it cannot be presumed that he has the propensity to commit crime, it said.
The court said, “Bodily strength has no nexus with propensity to commit crime. The propensity to commit crime has to be analysed by examining reformative ascension of the prisoner based on cogent material.”
