CrPC Section 432 – Power To Suspend Or Remit Sentences

Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is a crucial provision that empowers the government to suspend or remit sentences of convicted individuals. This power, while intended to serve the interests of justice and rehabilitation, raises important questions about the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive.

Simplified Explanation Of CrPC Section 432

Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) outlines the power of the government to suspend or remit sentences. Here's a breakdown of each sub-section:

Sub-Section (1): Power To Suspend Or Remit Sentences

The sub-section vests in the "appropriate Government" the power to suspend a sentence (temporarily halt its execution) or to remit a sentence (cancellation either wholly or partly of the sentence) for an offence. This can be made unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it imposes upon the convicted person.

Sub-Section (2): Government's Need For The Judge's Opinion

When the "appropriate Government" receives an application to suspend or remit a sentence, they can seek the opinion of the presiding judge of the court which passed or confirmed the conviction. The opinion should be accompanied by reasons and a certified copy of the trial record.

Sub-Section (3): Revocation Of Suspension Or Remission

In case the "appropriate Government" feels that any condition along with which a suspension or remission has been granted has not been fulfilled, it can revoke that suspension or remission. Thereafter, the person who had the benefit of suspension or remission of the sentence may be arrested by any police officer without any warrant and made to serve the remaining part of the sentence.

Sub-Section (4): Types Of Conditions

The conditions for suspending or remitting a sentence can be either those that the sentenced person must fulfill or those that are independent of the person's actions.

Sub-Section (5): Rules And Directions For Petitions

The "appropriate Government" can frame general rules or make specific orders in regard to the suspension of sentences, including conditions for submitting and processing of petitions. Significantly, for sentences awarded to males above 18 years of age (except fines), petitions from the individual or someone else on their behalf will only be considered if the person is currently in jail. The petition must be presented through the officer in charge of the jail if it is made by the sentenced person; otherwise, it must declare that the person is in jail if made by some other person.

Sub-Section (6): Applicability To Other Orders

Provisions made under the foregoing subsections also extend to any criminal court order issued by a criminal court that restricts a person's liberty or imposes a liability on them or their property.

Sub-Section (7): Definition Of "Appropriate Government"

The expression "appropriate government" is defined on the basis of jurisdiction:

1. Central Government: For offences involving laws under the Union’s executive power.
2. State Government: All other cases within the state's jurisdiction.

Legal Principles Underlying Section 432

Section 432 of the CrPC embodies a reformative approach to criminal justice by empowering the appropriate government, with potential judicial consultation, to suspend or remit sentences, balancing executive authority with judicial considerations.

Reformative Aspect Of Criminal Justice

Section 432 embodies a reformative approach by allowing the appropriate government to suspend or remit sentences, potentially aiding in the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society under suitable conditions. This aligns with the broader goals of criminal justice beyond pure retribution.

Executive Power In Sentencing

While the judiciary pronounces sentences, Section 432 recognizes the executive's role in granting remissions or suspensions. This reflects a balance of powers, acknowledging the executive's considerations regarding policy, administrative efficiency, and other factors relevant to the implementation of sentences.

Judicial Consultation As A Safeguard

To ensure judicious use of the power under Section 432, the appropriate government may consult the presiding judge of the convicting court. This consultation provides valuable judicial input, ensuring that decisions on suspension or remission are informed by the trial court's assessment of the case's facts and circumstances.

Case Law

Following is the landmark judgement on CrPC Section 432:

Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar vs. State of Gujarat (2024)

In this case, the court held the following regarding Section 432 of the CrPC:

Power To Remit Sentences

The appropriate government has the power to remit either wholly or partly the punishment of a convict. As per Section 432(1), it can be done either without conditions or upon such conditions as it thinks fit. This power is also mirrored in Section 473(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Informed & Fair Decision Making

Granting or not granting remission should be reasonably informed and be fair to parties involved.

No Automatic Right To Remission

A convict does not have a right to remission. Though a convict has the right to have their case for remission presented according to the law and any applicable policy adopted by the appropriate government.

Reasonable Conditions

Any conditions imposed while exercising the power under subsection (1) of Section 432 (or subsection (1) of Section 473 of the BNSS) must be reasonable. The conditions, if held to be arbitrary, may be invalidated for violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The conditions can also be challenged by the convict for violating Article 21 of the Constitution.

Restoration Of Liberty

Remission of a sentence restores liberty to a convict. If the order of remission is to be cancelled or revoked, this would automatically affect the convict's liberty.

Natural Justice

The right of cancellation or revocation of remission can not be exercised without complying with natural justice. Therefore, a show cause notice shall have to be given to the convict stating grounds of the proposed action. The convict must be given the opportunity to respond and be heard, after which the authority must pass an order with brief reasons.

Cancellation Of Remission

The registration of a cognizable offence against a convict is not, in itself, a reason for cancelling an order of remission. Allegations of breach of conditions cannot be accepted on their face value and each case must be determined on its own facts. Minor or trifling breaches should not lead to the cancellation of remission. Any allegation of breach shall be supported by material evidence. The appropriate government shall consider the nature and gravity of the breach alleged.

Vague Conditions

The court held that conditions like 'behave decently' are too vague and subjective, and hence, arbitrary. Such conditions cannot be imposed when granting a remission.

Clarification On Condition 2

The court clarified that condition 2, which states that the prisoner will be arrested and serve the remaining sentence if they commit any cognizable offense, should not be interpreted to mean that any allegation of a breach will automatically result in the cancellation of the remission.

Criticisms

Criticisms of Section 432 of the CrPC often center on concerns regarding potential misuse of executive power, arbitrariness, and judicial overreach.

1. Potential For Abuse: The provision, without proper checks, may be misused to favor influential persons.
2. Arbitrariness: There is no clear guideline for the application.
3. Judicial Overreach: The judiciary advises on applications, too much reliance on judicial opinion could blur the lines between the role of the executive and the judiciary.

Conclusion

Section 432 of the CrPC represents a complex interplay between executive clemency, judicial pronouncements, and the principles of reformative justice. While it offers a mechanism for rehabilitation and allows for flexibility in sentencing based on individual circumstances, it is not without its challenges. Concerns regarding potential misuse of power, lack of clear guidelines, and the need for greater transparency and consistency in its application remain.

FAQs

A few FAQs based on Section 432 of the CrPC are:

Q1. Who is the "appropriate government" under Section 432?

The "appropriate government" is the Central Government for offenses under Union laws and the State Government for offenses under state laws.

Q2. Does a convict have a right to remission?

No, a convict does not have an automatic right to remission, but they have the right to have their case considered according to law and government policy.

Q3. What kind of conditions can be imposed for remission?

Conditions must be reasonable and not arbitrary or vague. Conditions like “behave decently” have been deemed too vague by the courts.

Q4. How does one apply for remission under Section 432?

Petitions are typically submitted through the jail authorities if the person is incarcerated.

Q5. What are the main criticisms of Section 432?

Criticisms include concerns about potential misuse of executive power, lack of clear guidelines leading to arbitrariness, and insufficient focus on victim participation.

Q6. Does registering a new case automatically cancel remission?

No, the mere registration of a new case is not sufficient to cancel remission. There must be a proper determination of a breach of the remission conditions.