Supreme Court Orders Tamil Nadu Government to Consider Premature Release of Life Convict Rajan

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated April 25, 2019, directed the Tamil Nadu government to consider the premature release of Rajan, a Sri Lankan refugee convicted of multiple serious offences. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, citing prolonged incarceration of over 30 years and the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling striking down Section 27(3) of the Arms Act as unconstitutional.

Background of the Case

Rajan was named as an accused in an offence committed on July 27, 1988. The prosecution alleged that he and co-accused committed dacoity at the house of one Pitchaikara Grounder. While escaping in a Maruti van, he fired from a machine gun, killing three people and injuring four others. A case was registered against him under various sections of the IPC and the Arms Act, including:

• Section 395 (dacoity) of IPC – Seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
• Section 307 (attempt to murder, four counts) of IPC – Life imprisonment.
• Section 302 (murder, three counts) of IPC – Capital punishment (later commuted to life imprisonment).
• Section 3 read with Sections 25(1A) and 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act – Five years of imprisonment.

Legal Proceedings

After a full-fledged trial, the District and Sessions Court convicted Rajan in 2007. He challenged the decision in the Madras High Court, which upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment in 2008. Since then, he has remained in prison, having served more than 30 years in actual imprisonment, and with remission, over 36 years.

Petitioner’s Claims

Rajan applied for premature release on multiple occasions:

• In 2010, his request was rejected by the Tamil Nadu Advisory Board.
• In 2018, he filed another representation, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh, which declared Section 27(3) of the Arms Act unconstitutional.
• He argued that his sentence under that section should no longer be counted, and he had already served time for his remaining convictions.
• He referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Sewak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, where a prisoner with 29 years of incarceration was released.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Tamil Nadu government opposed his release on the following grounds:

• The crime was of a serious nature, involving indiscriminate firing with an AK-47.
• His previous application for release was already rejected in 2010.
• As he was convicted under the Arms Act, consultation with the Central Government was required before granting remission.
• He had not shown signs of repentance for his actions.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• Since Section 27(3) of the Arms Act was declared unconstitutional, Rajan’s conviction under that provision could not be considered.
• His sentences for dacoity and violations of the Arms Act had already been served.
• Only his life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC remained valid.
• In Muthuramalingam vs. State, it was ruled that multiple life sentences must run concurrently.
• Consultation with the Central Government was unnecessary as the remaining offences were under state jurisdiction.
• The Tamil Nadu government must process his request under Sections 432 and 433 of CrPC without being influenced by its earlier rejection.

Judicial Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court relied on multiple precedents to decide the case:

• State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh (2012) 3 SCC 346 – Declared Section 27(3) of the Arms Act unconstitutional.
• Muthuramalingam vs. State (2016) 8 SCC 313 – Established that life sentences must run concurrently.
• Ram Sewak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – Ordered release of a prisoner with over 29 years of incarceration.
• State of Tamil Nadu vs. P. Veera Bhaarathi (2019) – Addressed premature release of life convicts.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu government to:

“Process the representation made by the petitioner dated 5th February 2018 and take it to its logical end expeditiously and preferably within four months, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the rejection of the earlier representation.”

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling sets a precedent for considering premature release applications fairly. The implications include:

• Recognition of Long-Term Incarceration: Reinforces that convicts who have served extended prison terms should be fairly considered for remission.
• Clarification on Remission Powers: Establishes that state governments can process such requests without requiring Central Government consultation in certain cases.
• Ensuring Fairness in Decision-Making: Prevents arbitrary denial of release applications based on previous rejections.
• Limiting the Scope of the Arms Act: Affirms that Section 27(3) convictions cannot be counted after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dalbir Singh.
• Procedural Safeguards: Mandates that remission applications be processed in a time-bound manner.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rajan vs. The Home Secretary, Tamil Nadu upholds the principles of fairness in the justice system. By directing the Tamil Nadu government to reconsider Rajan’s release, the judgment reinforces the need for a consistent and reasoned approach in handling remission cases. This ruling ensures that convicts who have served prolonged sentences are given a fair opportunity for release, subject to proper legal evaluation.

Petitioner Name: Rajan.
Respondent Name: The Home Secretary, Tamil Nadu & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 25-04-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Rajan vs The Home Secretary, Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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