IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.522 of 2009 SURENDRA PRASAD SON OF YADO LAL SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TIKULIA; POLICE STATION-CHANPATIA; DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH …….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(PRISON), BIHAR. 3. THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT, SHAHID KHUDIRAM BOSE, CENTRAL JAIL, MUZAFFARPUR. ……. Respondents ----------- 5 06.11.2009 Heard Mr. Kailash Nath Diwakar for the petitioner, and Mr. Ahshanuddin Amanullah, learned Standing Counsel No. 17. The petitioner seeks a direction to the State Government to give him the benefit of remission of sentence. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner has been convicted of offences under Sections 302 and 376 IPC for having committed rape followed by murder of his brother’s wife, leading to sentence for life, by judgment of the learned Second Additional Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Chanpatia P.S. case no. 08/92, being Sessions Trial No. 88/92. According to the petitioner, he is in custody since 23.8.1994, and is entitled to the benefit of remission of sentence, and the consequential direction of release. 3. The respondents have placed on record the counter affidavit and have opposed the writ petition. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It 2 appears that the judgment of conviction, under Sections 302 and 376 IPC sentencing him to life imprisonment, has attained finality. The petitioner’s case for remission of sentence was considered by the Remission Committee on 21.7.2008 (Annexure-A), and the benefit has been disallowed to him on the following grounds: “mez de jgus rFkk cykRdkj ds ekeys esa layXu jgus ds dkj.kAÞ No provision of law or of any executive instruction has been brought to our notice to show that age is a relevant factor in the present context. However, the second factor is enough to justify the order of rejection. Clause(IV) of the notification dated 10.12.2002 issued by the Government of Bihar in the Department of Home (Special) reads as follows: “¼iv½ le; iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, v;ksX;rk fuEukafdr Js.kh ds fl)nks"k canh] tks vkthou dkjkokl dk naM Hkqxr jgs gksa] le;&iwoZ fjgkbZ ds fy, fopkj&;ksX; ugha gks ldsaxs %& ¼d½ cykRdkj] MdSrh vkradoknh vijk/kks] vkfn tSls vijk/kksa ds fl)nks’k canhA ¼[k½ oSls canh tks iwoZ fparu fd;s x;s fo’k;ksa ,oa lqfu;ksftr <ax ls gR;k,¡ vk;ksftr djus ds fy, fl)nks’k gksA ¼x½ oSls is”ksoj gR;kjs] ftUgsa HkkM+s ij gR;k djkus dk nks’kh ik;k x;k gksA ¼?k½ oSls fl)nks’k canh tks rLdjh dk;Z esa varfyZIr jgrs gq, gR;k djrk gks vFkok dRrZO; ij jgus okys yksd lsodksa dh gR;k dk nks’kh gksAÞ The present case is covered by Clause(ka) which provides that a person convicted of rape is rendered ineligible for the benefit of remission of sentence. 5. The Supreme Court has observed as follows in 3 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ratan Singh, reported in A.I.R 1976 S.C. 1552; “9(2)...That the appropriate Government has the undoubted discretion to remit or refuse to remit the sentence and where it refuses to remit the sentence no writ can be issued directing the State Government to release the prisoner.” 6. We, therefore, do not find any fault with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )