BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
A significant turning point in the legal landscape occurred on January 5, 2023, when the case of Rohan Dhungat v. The State of Goa was heard in court. This historic case explored the complexities of the law as well as more general societal concerns about justice, equality, and individual rights. This legal dispute fundamentally represents the fight for justice and the pursuit of truth within a convoluted and constantly changing legal system.
In the analysis that follows, we seek to analyse the major components, claims, and ramifications that have influenced this case’s course. Every stage of the case, from the beginning of the legal process to the verdict, provides insightful information about the workings of the legal system and the difficulties involved in delivering fair justice.
We are going to investigate the subtleties of Rohan Dhungat’s interaction with the Goan legal system within this framework. We aim to shed light on the significance of this case and its long-lasting effects on the legal system and society at large through painstaking investigation and analysis.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
All of the initial petitioners are convicted felons serving life sentences. that in accordance with the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 (henceforth referred to as the “Rules, 2006”), each of them was released on parole. that under the Rules of 2006, each of the initial petitioners requested an early release. The State Sentence Revenue Board advised against premature release.
The State Government asked the convicting court for its opinion regarding the petitioners’ early release. Given the seriousness of the offense, the convicting court believed that the prisoners should not be released too soon. As a result, the State Government denied the petitioners’ early release.
As a result, the original writ petitioners, who were the convicts, challenged the State’s decision to reject their request for early release in their respective writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The initial writ petitioners argued before the High Court that the prisoners should have been released early because they had served out their 14 years in prison. The original petitioners, who were convicted of crimes, argued that the Rules of 2006 did not exempt the parole period from the sentence period, even though they considered a 14-year jail sentence in order to avoid an early release.
By observing and holding that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release, the High Court by impugned judgment and order has taken into consideration Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006, which states that the period of release on furlough and as a form of sentence reduction, parole “shall be counted.”
The High Court denied the corresponding writ petitions by the contested judgment and order. Filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, the original writ petitioners expressed their displeasure and feelings of injustice with the common judgment and order that the High Court had passed.
ISSUE RAISED IN THE CASE:
- Whether a prisoner’s parole periods may be included in the total sentence length while keeping in mind the minimum 14-year sentence?
ARGUMENTS PRESENETD:
Speaking on behalf of the individual petitioners, the learned senior counsel vehemently contended that the Hon’ble High Court erred gravely in determining that the period of parole should be excluded from the sentence under the Rules, 2006, while allowing for an early release based on 14 years of actual imprisonment. The Honourable High Court erred when it relied on Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006 to rule that a parole period cannot be counted as part of a sentence because it is counted as remission.
In addition, he argued that, for the purpose of premature release, the accused and/or convicted individuals may be considered to be in custody or judicial custody even while they are on parole, so the parole period must be taken into account in addition to the 14 years of actual imprisonment.
He went on to say that in accordance with Section 55 of the Prisons Act of 1894, a prisoner is considered to be in custody when being transported to or from any jail where he might be detained legally. Consequently, the parole period must be included in the calculation of the actual period of imprisonment, taking into account 14 years of actual imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had heavily relied upon or taken into consideration Rule 335 of the Rules, 2006, which states that the period of release on furlough and parole “shall be counted as remission of sentence,” when passing the contested judgment and order and taking the position that the period of parole is to be omitted from the sentence period while accounting for 14 years of real incarceration. In addition to being correctly observed and held by the High Court, the parole period must also be excluded from the sentence period when taking into account the 14 years of actual imprisonment if it is to be counted as a remission of sentence.
The Supreme Court went on to state that the petitioners’ argument, which relied on Section 55 of the Prisons Act of 1894 to hold that prisoners would be considered to be in custody even while they were on parole and that this meant the period in question should be counted toward actual imprisonment, was without merit. Regarding parole release, section 55 of the Prisons Act of 1894 will not apply. The Prisons Act of 1894, Section 55, will come into play when a prisoner is removed from any prison and is considered to have been incarcerated. On the other hand, parole release will not fall under this category.
The Supreme Court went on to say that if the prisoners’ request that their parole be extended while they are being considered for 14 years of actual imprisonment is granted, any influential prisoner may be granted parole multiple times without any restrictions. In addition, if the prisoners’ request is granted, it may negate the very goal and purpose of their actual imprisonment.
RATIONALE
When dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court’s bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar stated, “We are of the firm view that the period of parole is to be excluded for the purpose of considering actual imprisonment.” We wholeheartedly concur with the High Court’s decision in this regard.
AUTHOR’ s DETAIL
Suhani Soni
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (Raj.)