Parole Period and Premature Release: Supreme Court Clarifies Sentence Computation

The case of Rohan Dhungat & Ors. v. The State of Goa & Ors. addresses a critical legal issue regarding the computation of the sentence of life convicts seeking premature release. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the period of parole should be counted as part of the sentence when considering the completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment for premature release.

Background of the Case

The petitioners, life convicts in the State of Goa, applied for premature release under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006. Although the State Sentence Revenue Board recommended their release, the convicting court rejected the application, citing the gravity of the offense. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Bombay High Court, arguing that they had completed 14 years in custody and were entitled to premature release.

The High Court dismissed their petition, ruling that the period of parole should be excluded from the computation of their sentence. Aggrieved by this decision, the convicts approached the Supreme Court, contending that parole should be included in their sentence computation.

Legal Issues Considered

The Supreme Court examined the following key legal questions:

Whether the period spent on parole should be counted as part of the sentence for computing 14 years of actual imprisonment.
Whether parole is considered a part of imprisonment or a temporary relief from custody.
Whether the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, support the exclusion of parole in sentence computation.
Whether previous Supreme Court rulings on parole support the petitioners’ claim.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners, represented by their counsel, argued that:

Parole is a form of custody, and therefore, time spent on parole should be included in computing the total period of imprisonment.
The High Court erred in interpreting Rule 335 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, which states that parole is counted as remission and should not be excluded from the sentence.
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Avtar Singh v. State of Haryana establish that parole does not extend the period of incarceration.
Section 55 of the Prisons Act, 1894, deems a prisoner on parole to be in legal custody, and therefore, such time should be counted towards sentence completion.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Goa)

The State of Goa contended that:

Parole is a temporary relief from imprisonment and cannot be considered part of actual imprisonment.
Rule 335 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, explicitly states that the period of release on parole is counted as remission, not as part of actual sentence completion.
If parole is included in sentence computation, influential prisoners could misuse the system by frequently obtaining parole to artificially reduce their actual imprisonment.
The precedents cited by the petitioners were inapplicable because they dealt with preventive detention and not with life imprisonment.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

Parole is not part of actual imprisonment: The Court held that parole is a temporary release and cannot be counted towards actual sentence completion.
Parole period must be excluded: Rule 335 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, makes it clear that parole is counted as remission, and therefore, it does not contribute to the actual sentence period.
Previous Supreme Court judgments do not apply: The Court distinguished the present case from Sunil Fulchand Shah and Avtar Singh, noting that those cases dealt with preventive detention, whereas this case pertains to life imprisonment.
Misuse of parole must be prevented: The Court emphasized that including parole in sentence computation would allow prisoners to artificially shorten their imprisonment by repeatedly obtaining parole.
High Court’s decision upheld: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s ruling that the petitioners had not completed 14 years of actual imprisonment when excluding parole, and therefore, they were not eligible for premature release.

Analysis of the Judgment

The ruling clarifies that parole is a privilege and not a right. It is granted as a temporary relief but does not contribute to the actual imprisonment period required for premature release.

Implications for Convicts Seeking Premature Release

Convicts cannot count parole as part of their actual imprisonment.
Eligibility for premature release is determined strictly by time spent in custody, excluding parole.
Frequent parole grants do not reduce the required period of imprisonment.

Implications for the Legal System

The ruling prevents misuse of parole by influential prisoners.
It reinforces the distinction between remission and actual imprisonment.
It ensures that parole remains a temporary relief rather than a method to evade actual punishment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case establishes a crucial precedent in sentencing law. By holding that parole must be excluded from sentence computation, the Court has reinforced the principle that life imprisonment means actual time spent in custody. This ruling ensures that premature release is granted only to those who have genuinely served the required period of incarceration.

Petitioner Name: Rohan Dhungat & Ors..
Respondent Name: The State of Goa & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Place Of Incident: Goa.
Judgment Date: 05-01-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: rohan-dhungat-&-ors.-vs-the-state-of-goa-&-o-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-05-01-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category