Viduthalai Kalam – memorial for Melavalavu victims at Melavalavu near Melur in Madurai district. File
| Photo Credit: G. Moorthy
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to revoke the remission order of one of the convicts in the 1997 Melavalavu massacre case and restore the conviction and sentence imposed on him. He was arrested and remanded in judicial custody in another case reported in 2023.
The court was hearing a petition filed by A. Manikandan of K. Muthuvelpatti, in Madurai district. The petitioner who belongs to a Scheduled Caste complained that Sekar, one of the convicts in the 1997 massacre case, released prematurely in 2019 to mark the MGR centenary celebration, had picked up a quarrel with his relative and his friend after they were sitting cross-legged on their motorcycle. Sekar had told them that it was disrespectful to him.
Later, Sekar and his accomplices attacked Manikandan and his friend with knives and threatened them of dire consequences as done in the Melavalavu incident. The petitioner sustained serious injuries and was admitted to a hospital. Following a complaint, Sekar was arrested and subsequently remanded in judicial custody.
The petitioner sought a direction to the authorities to quash the G.O. pertaining to the premature release of Sekar and restore the conviction and sentence imposed on him.
A Division Bench of Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira and K. Rajasekar observed that while the undesirable retributive theory had been given a goby long back, the present legal system was based only on deterrent, preventive and reformative theories. They are the underlying principles behind the punishment of imprisonment.
The law enforcing agencies would play a vital role based on the deterrent theory and when it goes to the next level, the preventive theory will come into play and the offenders are being disabled from committing any crime by long incarceration to achieve the immediate goal of prevention and the long-term goal of reformation. Therefore, the ultimate focus of prison policy is rehabilitation, the court observed.
| Video Credit:
G. Moorthy
Though the noble idea of rehabilitation in the concept of premature release cannot be disputed, the impact of recidivism in society cannot be simply ignored. What is required is a balanced view in between the fundamental right of the prisoner and that of society consisting of innocent common men.
The default clause in the ultimate portion of the Bond, which emphasises that in case of breach of any of the conditions, the prisoner shall render himself liable to be rearrested to undergo the unexpired portion of sentence of imprisonment on the date of release, cannot be construed to have application only in respect of the clause containing the restriction of probation period by three years, excluding Clause (1) which clearly stipulates compliance of the conditions till the date of expiry of normal period of imprisonment.
It has to be borne in mind that registration of FIR is being done only when a complaint discloses the commission of cognisable offence. In this case, the registration of the present FIR and the arrest of Sekar made thereon would clearly prove the cognisance taken by the police with regard to the offence alleged against him. Such a condition speaks about commission of offence alone and it does not emphasise for a resultant conviction. No ulterior motive on the part of the petitioner can be attributed when the present complaint has not been lodged immediately on the premature release of the convict.
So the court is of the view that it is the bounden duty on the part of the authorities concerned to initiate steps for revoking the remission order by implementing the default clause in the Bond under Form No.130 under Rule 341(8) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 executed by the prisoner Sekar, when it has been brought to their notice by the petitioner and they cannot shirk their responsibility. Their inaction had resulted in the filing of the present writ petition warranting interference of the court. Therefore, we are constrained to direct the authorities to revoke the remission order in exercise of the default clause in the Bond executed by Sekar and restore the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the court directed.
