Today, On 8th September, Supreme Court slams Uttarakhand government for delaying legal aid to a murder convict who developed psychosis in jail, questioning, “Why no legal help for convict with psychosis?” The top court demands urgent action to protect the inmate’s rights.
The Supreme Court criticized the State of Uttarakhand for systemic failures in a 2011 murder case involving a convict, now diagnosed with psychosis, who has been incarcerated for over 15 years.
A Bench consisting of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh ordered the Principal Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand to appear in person and clarify why the prisoner did not receive adequate legal assistance and why his appeal was not filed for a decade.
The Court was reviewing the case of a 37-year-old man, sentenced to life imprisonment by a Champawat sessions court in 2011 for allegedly killing his mother with a stick, which also resulted in injuries to his father and wife who attempted to intervene.
Despite being eligible for free legal aid, no action was taken for ten years to contest the trial court’s decision. It wasn’t until 2021, through the Uttarakhand Legal Services Committee, that a criminal appeal was submitted to the High Court in Nainital.
However, the High Court rejected the request to suspend his sentence, citing the severity of the charges.
Before the Supreme Court, the convict’s attorney, advocate Sriram Parakkat, noted that he has since developed psychosis while incarcerated. The bench voiced its concern regarding the extended period of imprisonment and the lack of timely legal aid.
Parakkat argued that the trial court had convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder, but the circumstances indicated that the crime fell under Exception 4 of Section 300, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
He also contended that there was no motive or premeditation, with the prosecution relying heavily on interested witnesses.
The petition emphasized that the case aligns with the Supreme Court’s own policy directives regarding prolonged incarceration.
In the suo motu case of In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2022), the Supreme Court stated that life convicts who have served over 10 years should be considered for bail, and those who have served over 14 years should be flagged for premature release, even if their appeals are still pending.
Case Title: Pramod Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand