Partly allowed

Sumesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2011WP(C)/6636/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal convict filed a writ petition seeking parole approval. The High Court observed that the police reports rejecting parole were contradictory and reflected non-application of mind regarding safety and local threat, amidst favorable findings on the prisoner's character and safety.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Superintendent of Central Prison to obtain a fresh report from the Commissioner of Police and take a fresh decision on the parole request.

Sumesh Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 6636 of 2011(D)

¶6

----------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

----------------------

¶9

SUMESH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, MANIYATHUPARAMBIL VEETTIL, R.G.Y.ROAD, VADUTHALA DESOM, CHERANALLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.HARIDAS

¶11

SMT.SIKKY RAVISHANKAR.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

------------------------

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PRISONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, THRISSUR.

¶17

4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J.RAJASHREE.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

STU

¶21

WP(C).No. 6636 of 2011(D)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER,2006 IN S.C.NO.195/2006 ON THE FILES OF SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM.

¶25

P2 : COPY OF THE REPORTS AND LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DTD 21/08/2008.

¶26

P2(A) : COPY OF THE REPORTS AND LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DTD 31/10/2008.

¶27

P2(B) : COPY OF THE REPORTS AND LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DTD 15/01/2009.

¶28

P2(C) : COPY OF THE REPORTS AND LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DTD 15/05/2009.

¶29

P2(D) : COPY OF THE REPORTS AND LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DTD 16/09/2009.

¶30

P2(E) : COPY OF THE REPORTS AND LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DTD 16/02/2010.

¶31

P2(F) : COPY OF THE REPORTS AND LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DTD 31/05/2010.

¶32

P3 : COPY OF THE REPORT DTD 17/01/2011 FILED BY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE.

¶33

P3(A) : COPY OF THE REPORT DTD 15/01/2011 OF THE C.I. OF POLICE, TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶34

REPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE.

STU

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 6636 OF 2011

¶40

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2011

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

Petitioner was an accused in S.C.195/06 on the file of the

¶43

Sessions Court, Ernakulam. By Ext.P1 judgment rendered on 31^st October, 2006 petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine. Crl.A. 26/07 filed by him was also dismissed. Accordingly the petitioner is now undergoing imprisonment at the Central Prison, Viyyur.

¶44

It is stated that his parents are aged and are ailing and therefore he submitted several applications for parole through the Jail Superintendent. On the applications so made, reports were obtained from the Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, copies of which are Exts.P2 and P3 series. In all these reports parole was not recommended, as a result of which it was not granted. It is therefore this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner the benefit of parole.

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 6636 OF 2011

¶46

:2 :

¶47

A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which the sole reason stated for not granting parole to the petitioner is the adverse police reports. Since paragraph 3 of the said statement demonstrates these aspects, the said paragraph is extracted here for easy reference.

¶48

“For getting ordinary parole he submitted application in this office on 01.08.2008 and communication were sent to City Police Commissioner, Kochi and District Probation Officer, Ernakulam for enquiry reports. Though he got recommendation report from probation officer on 29.11.2008 (first time itself), repeatedly police report was not recommended. In the following dates 3^rd respondent received reports from City Police Commissioner with not recommended report, i.e. 21.08.2008, 31.10.2008, 15.01.2009, 15.05.2009, 16.09.2009, 16.02.2010, 31.05.2010 & 17.01.2011. Merely because of this reason, C.5633, Sumesh could not avail ordinary parole as recommendation reports from concerned City Police Commissioner and Probation Officer is mandatory for the same.”

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 6636 OF 2011

¶50

:3 :

¶51

Heard the learned Government Pleader and the

¶52

learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶53

As can be seen from the statement filed, adverse police reports is the only reason for declining parole to the petitioner. These adverse reports have been produced as Exts.P2 series and P3. Among various reports Ext.P2 is dated 21.8.2008 and in that report it is stated that if the petitioner is released, the local people may protest since they feel insecurity on the release of the prisoner. However, in the subsequent reports there is no such statement and on the other hand reports are to the effect that neither the petitioner does pose any threat to the locality nor does the report indicate that if released the petitioner would be under threat from anybody. It is in spite of it that parole has not been recommended by the Commissioner of Police based on the report of the Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam North. The last report Ext.P3, contains the proforma report of the Circle Inspector of Police,

¶54

W.P.(C) No. 6636 OF 2011

¶55

:4 :

¶56

Ernakulam North and the relevant portion of which is extracted below for reference.

¶57

“Performa Report for Parole C No.5633

¶58

1	What will be reaction in the locality of the Prisoner if released on parole	The release of the prisoner may be not cause threat to the life and property of the people in the locality because locals have no strong objection against in.
2	What is the feeling of the relatives	The brother of the victim is highly furious and they are not ready to pardon the prisoner.
3	Whether the life of the prisoner himself will be safe if he is released on parole.	There is no possibility of threat to the life of the prisoner.
4	Any additional information	It is known that the parents of the prisoner are they and wife are depending only the prisoner.
5	The past history and conduct of the prisoner	He is an ordinary man in character.
6	Whether he has any previous conviction.	Not known now.
7	Whether release is recommended or not	Not recommended.
8	The solvency of the prisoner together with the security up to which he should be responsible as to which kind himself to ensure his release parole. (Nominal Roll enclosed)	N/A

¶59

W.P.(C) No. 6636 OF 2011

¶60

:5 :

¶61

Based on this report the Commissioner made his recommendations under his letter dated 17-1-2011, the relevant portion of which is extracted below.

¶62

“As per the proforma enquiry report of CI of Police, E T North it is revealed that the relatives of the victim are not recommending the release of the convict. The release of the prisoner may be not cause threat to the life and property of the people in the locality because locals have no strong objection against him. The brother of the victim is highly furious and they are not ready to pardon the prisoner.

¶63

Hence there is objection to allow parole to the convict. The nominal roll of the convict is attached herewith.”

¶64

In my view both the report of the Circle Inspector of Police as also the Commissioner of Police

¶65

W.P.(C) No. 6636 OF 2011

¶66

:6 :

¶67

reflects total non application of mind. I say so for the reason that the proforma extracted above shows that in spite of the favourable findings contained in the report the Circle Inspector not recommended parole to the petitioner. It was accepting this report that the Commissioner of Police made an adverse report against the petitioner. Since the report is contradictory in terms, the decision taken by the authorities based on such report that parole to the petitioner be declined, also is vitiated.

¶68

Therefore I dispose of the writ petition directing that the 3^rd respondent will obtain a fresh report from the Commissioner of Police, Kochi considering the request of the petitioner for parole and take a fresh decision on his request.

¶69

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/[true copy] P.S. to Judge

Sumesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.v.Ramadasan Vs Joy Thomas

Biju Shamsudeen Kunju Vs Union of India and Another

Thrissur Grand Shopping Mall (P) Ltd. Vs the District Collector, Thrissur and

T.C.Lathika Kumari Vs State of Kerala and Others

Renju Alex Vs the Chief Forest Conservator, Kannur

Karthyayani Panickathiar Vs Conservator of Forest & Custodian of