Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.

1. The Petitioner is the father of the deceased victim Mandar Surlakar. The Petitioner herein seeks to quash and set aside the Minutes of the 8th Meeting of the State Sentence Review Board (‘SSRB’) constituted under the Goa Prison Rules, 2021 held on 21st May 2025, in which meeting the SSRB recommended the Respondents No. 4 to 6 for premature release. The Respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 (‘Respondents’) were convicted by the Children’s Court, Panaji, Goa, by Judgment and Order dated 23rd June 2014.

2. The Respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 i.e. Accused No. 1, 3 and 4 respectively, were found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 364-A read with 120-B, 302 read with 120-B and 201 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and Section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 (‘Children’s Act’). There was another Accused No. 2, who was also found guilty of the aforesaid offences. They were all sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offences under Sections 120-B, 364-A and 302 of the IPC; to rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offences punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and Section 8 of the Children’s Act; and were directed to pay ₹10,000/-as fine for each offence, and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each default.

3. The Respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 had assailed the Judgment and Order dated 24th June 2014 passed by the Children's Court by preferring separate Criminal Appeals before this Court. This Court vide its Judgment and Order dated 4th March 2019 dismissed all the Criminal Appeals, maintaining and confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the Children's Court. While dismissing the appeals, this Court in paragraph 229 of its Judgment and Order dated 4th March 2019 had observed as under:

                    “229. Though we are not inclined to direct that the convicts undergo prison sentences for the remainder of their natural lives without remission, we may not be misunderstood to have observed that the cases of convicts must be considered for remission no sooner they complete the statutory minimum sentence. All that we say at these stages is that this is a matter which is best left to the appropriate authority/executive. We have no doubt that the appropriate authority/executive will be mindful of the statutory checks applicable to such cases and will further take into account relevant considerations while eschewing irrelevant ones, if and when the occasion arises to consider the cases of the convicts for remission. We also clarify that if the parents or the relations of the victims are dissatisfied with the orders, if and when, made by the appropriate authority/executive, they will undoubtedly have the liberty to challenge such orders by taking out appropriate appeals seeking judicial review on all available grounds, including but not restricted to the grounds that the statutory checks and relevant considerations have been ignored and irrelevant considerations have been taken into account. In order to enable them to do so, we direct the appropriate authority/executive to make available copies of such orders to the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 44/2014 at least thirty days before such orders, if and when made, are actually implemented.”

4. Respondent No. 4 filed a mercy petition before the Governor of Goa in 2018. The convicting Court’s opinion was sought. By letter dated 23rd August 2019, the convicting Court recommended that the mercy petition be considered, while detailing mitigating circumstances relating to Respondent No. 4’s reformation. However, in 2020, the Governor rejected the mercy petition.

5. Thereafter, the SSRB considered the cases of each of the Respondents at its meeting on 18th September 2020 and recommended their premature release from prison. The Respondent No. 1-State sought the convicting Court’s opinion, which declined to recommend premature release on the ground that the crime was heinous. On the basis of the convicting Court’s opinion, Respondent No. 1, vide letter dated 10th May 2021, rejected the Respondents’ cases for premature release.

6. The Respondents assailed this rejection by the State before this Court by filing separate Criminal Writ Petitions No. 466/2021(F), 467/2022(F) and 472/2021(F). This Court, by a common Judgment and Order dated 3rd August 2022, held that the Respondents had not completed the minimum actual imprisonment of 14 years required for consideration by the SSRB for premature release, and directed that, as and when the Respondents completed the mandatory period, the appropriate authorities could consider their cases in accordance with the applicable Rules.

7. The Respondents preferred Special Leave Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 12574-12577 of 2022 before the Supreme Court against the Judgment and Order dated 3rd August 2022 passed by this Court. By Judgment dated 5th January 2023((2023) 11 SCC 554.), the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and affirmed the view taken by this Court, holding that the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for premature release.

8. The Respondents completed 14 years of actual imprisonment, excluding the period of parole and furlough. The SSRB thus considered their case at its 8th meeting on 21st May 2025 and recommended premature release. It is this recommendation that is challenged by the present petition. In any case, the State, based on the opinion of the convicting Court, by its letter dated 20th August 2025, rejected the SSRB’s recommendation.

9. The Respondents challenged the State Government’s rejection by filing separate Writ Petitions before this Court. By three separate Judgments and Orders dated 27th November 2025, 4th December 2025 and 17th December 2025, this Court set aside the State’s rejection Order dated 20th August 2025 and directed the Government to reconsider its decision. This Court also advised the State Government not to base its decision solely on the opinion of the convicting Court.

10. The State then reconsidered the Respondents’ case for premature release pursuant to this Court’s Orders, only to reject the recommendation once again by letters dated 18th December 2025, 1st January 2026 and 15th January 2026. The Respondents filed separate Writ Petitions No. 94/2026, 174/2026 and 109/2026 before this Court, assailing the State’s rejection of the recommendations.

11. By Judgment and Order dated 6th August 2026, this Court allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the State’s rejection of the SSRB’s recommendations pertaining to the premature release of the Respondents. This Court has directed the release of the Respondents No. 4, 5 and 6.

12. During the hearing of the Writ Petitions filed by the Respondents, the Petitioner herein, by this Petition, assailed the SSRB’s recommendation dated 21st May 2025.

13. We have heard Mr Deepak Gaonkar, learned Counsel representing the deceased-victim’s father, i.e. the Petitioner herein, Mr Preetam Talaulikar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State of Goa, Mr Nigel Fernandes, learned Counsel representing the Respondents No. 4 and 5 and Mr Mark Valadares, learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 6.

14. Mr Gaonkar, learned Counsel representing the Petitioner herein, submitted as follows:

                    i. While recommending premature release of the Respondents, the SSRB has not rendered a positive finding whether the Respondents have lost the potentiality to commit a crime in future.

                    ii. Considering the gravity of the offence, the SSRB’s recommendation is arbitrary and made without any application of law. The SSRB failed to take into account the opinion of the Superintendent of Police (North Goa) who objected on the ground of the gravity of the offence and the effect of such premature release on society.

                    iii. The SSRB failed to consider the tenets of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India((2002) 2 SCC 595.).

                    iv. There is no material before the SSRB indicating any reform in the Respondents’ personality and character. Undertaking studies, acquiring degrees and other qualifications may be a greater indicator of academic potential and intelligence, but not of character. No analysis was undertaken to assess the Respondents’ character and personality. The Respondents’ good behaviour does not entitle them to any mileage since good behaviour is an obligation on their part. Similarly, punctual surrender on expiry of the period of furlough/parole does not indicate good behaviour. Any convict is bound to comply with the rules. Hence, these parameters considered by the SSRB have no substantial value in concluding that the Respondents have reformed.

                    v. The Respondents’ good conduct in prison is also not an indicator of reform, as convicts ordinarily behave within accepted norms under the watchful eyes of the jail staff.

15. Mr. Gaonkar placed reliance on some decisions of the Supreme Court, which are as follows:

                    (i) Ram Chander vs. State of Chhattisgarh & anr.((2022) 12 SCC 52)

                    (ii) Swamy Shraddananda vs. State of Karnataka((2008) 13 SCC 767)

                    (iii) Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State (Govt. of the NCT) of Delhi(W.P.(CRL) 1431/2023 of Delhi High Court decided on 01.07.2025)

16. While setting aside the State’s rejection of the SSRB’s recommendation of the Respondents’ premature release from prison, vide our Judgment and Order dated 6th August 2026, we have considered all the relevant aspects, having regard to the Goa Prison Rules, 2006, the Respondents’ conduct in jail and when out on furlough/parole, indicators of reform, etc. We also perused in detail the recommendations of the SSRB and the factors considered by the SSRB in all three cases. Insofar as the Respondent No.4 is concerned, the findings of the SSRB on 21st May 2025 are as under:

                    (a) The Respondent was 19 at the time of his arrest and is now 37 years of age. He has undergone 20 years, 2 months, and 29 days of total imprisonment and 14 years, 1 month, and 9 days of actual imprisonment as on 31st March 2025.

                    (b) He was released on parole/furlough on 24 occasions in the last 20 years. Nothing adverse was reported against him by the police or the general public during his release on parole/furlough.

                    (c) Inspector General of Prisons informed the SSRB regarding a representation made by the Petitioner to various Government authorities objecting the premature release. The Inspector General of Prisons also placed reports received from the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, Bambolim, Goa, (‘IPHB’) the Superintendent of Jail, Superintendent of Police (North Goa), the District Magistrate and the Probation Officer. The IPHB has confirmed that the Respondent has relatively good stress tolerance, an efficient coping mechanism and a satisfactory level of emotional maturity. Presence of psychotic or effective features is ruled out, and the Respondent has not shown any signs of a major psychiatric illness.

                    (d) The Superintendent of Jail stated that the Respondent was working as a convict warden, is very good in fine arts and his services were being used to carve paintings on the Jail walls. His behaviour was cordial with the other inmates and there are no adverse reports against him. Thus, he recommended his case for premature release.

                    (e) Save and except the Superintendent of Police, North Goa, all the authorities have confirmed that the Respondent is a reformed person and recommended him for premature release. The Superintendent of Police (North Goa) objected on the ground of the nature of offence and that his early release is not in the interest of justice or public safety.

                    (f) The District Magistrate and Probation Officer also recommended the Respondent’s case.

                    (g) The SSRB also considered the Respondent’s social history, the status of his family, his response to training and treatment, marked changes in habits, attitude, character, degree of criminality, health and mental condition and possibility of resettlement after his release.

                    (h) The SSRB also considered that the Respondent participated in various reformation activities in prison; he is an excellent painter and a poet, and he also completed LLB, BA (Literature), PG Diploma in communications and IT skills, PG Diploma in Journalism and Mass Communications, etc., while undergoing his sentence.

17. Insofar as the Respondent No.5 is concerned, the findings of the SSRB on 21st May 2025 are as under:

                    (a) That he was 22 at the time of his arrest and presently is 40 years old.

                    (b) The Inspector General of Prisons reported that the Respondent has undergone 15 years 2 months and 12 days of actual imprisonment and 19 years 10 months and 13 days of imprisonment with remission as on 31st March 2025. He was released on 21 occasions on furlough/parole in the last 24 years.

                    (c) Inspector General of Prisons also briefed the SSRB regarding the representation of the Petitioner to various Government authorities. He also placed reports from other authorities before the board.

                    (d) The IPHB has confirmed that the Respondent has relatively good stress tolerance, an efficient coping mechanism and a satisfactory level of emotional maturity. Presence of psychotic or effective features are ruled out and the Respondent has not shown any signs of a major psychiatric illness.

                    (e) The Superintendent of Jail stated that the Respondent was working in the prisoners’ canteen and IGNOU section. His behaviour was cordial with the other inmates and there are no adverse reports against him. Thus, he recommended his case for premature release.

                    (f) The District Magistrate and the Probation Officer have also recommended the Respondent’s case.

                    (g) Save and except the Superintendent of Police, North Goa, all the authorities have confirmed that the Respondent is a reformed person and recommended him for premature release. The Superintendent of Police (North Goa) objected on the ground of the nature of offence and that his early release is not in the interest of justice or public safety.

                    (h) The SSRB considered the social history of the Respondent; recorded that his mother was ready to take him back; he had no antecedents before his convictions; his conduct in Jail was good; he responded well to training and treatment.

                    (i) The SSRB took into account the report of the Superintendent of Jail noting marked changes in habits, attitude and character as well as the degree of criminality. He participated in reformation activities in Jail. He has also completed various courses such as a degree in Tourism studies and a post graduate degree in Tourism and Travel Management. He also provided his services as a paralegal volunteer as a member of the DLSA. He showed above average intellectual functioning and there is no indication of any psychiatric illness. His mother, brother and sister-in-law are willing to accept him and resettle him.

18. Insofar as the Respondent No.6 is concerned, the findings of the SSRB on 21st May 2025 are as under:

                    (a) He was 20 years old at the time of his arrest and is now 38 years old.

                    (b) He has undergone 14 years 7 months and 17 days of actual imprisonment as of 31st October 2024. He has availed 56 days of furlough and completed a total imprisonment of 18 years 6 months and 6 days, including remission.

                    (c) Inspector General of Prisons also briefed the SSRB regarding the representation of the Petitioner to various Government authorities. He also placed reports from other authorities before the board.

                    (d) The IPHB has confirmed that the Respondent has relatively good stress tolerance, an efficient coping mechanism and a satisfactory level of emotional maturity. Presence of psychotic or effective features is ruled out and the Respondent has not shown any signs of a major psychiatric illness.

                    (e) The Superintendent of Jail stated that the Respondent was working in the prisoners’ canteen and IGNOU section. His behaviour was cordial with the other inmates and there are no adverse reports against him. Thus, he recommended his case for premature release.

                    (f) The District Magistrate and the Probation Officer have also recommended the Respondent’s case.

                    (g) Save and except the Superintendent of Police (North Goa), all the authorities have confirmed that the Respondent is a reformed person and recommended him for premature release. The Superintendent of Police (North Goa) objected on the ground of the nature of offence and that his early release is not in the interest of justice or public safety.

                    (h) The SSRB considered his social history: his father runs a restaurant at Calangute; his mother is a retired teacher; he was studying at Salgaonkar Law College; he has no antecedents; he was working as a convict warden and in the Garden Section of the Jail.

                    (i) The SSRB took into account the report of the Superintendent of Jail, noting marked changes in habits, attitude and character and degree of criminality. He participated in reformation activities in Jail. He has also completed various courses such as Degree in Social Science and a Post-Graduation in MA (Sociology), while undergoing the sentence. He showed above average intellectual functioning and there is no indication of any psychiatric illness.

The SSRB has thus considered all the relevant factors required by the applicable Rules and has then recommended the Respondents for premature release.

19. Thus, a detailed analysis of the SSRB’s recommendation is indicative of the fact that no purpose would be served by keeping the Respondents in prison. In regard to Mr. Gaonkar’s objection that the SSRB has not positively noted the loss of potentiality in the Respondents to repeat a crime in future, it is a settled position of law that any assessment of likelihood of reoffending upon release must be based on the prisoners’ antecedents and their conduct while in custody, rather than merely on age or apprehensions expressed by victims or witnesses. The Supreme Court in Satish vs. State of Uttar Pradesh((2021) 14 SCC 580), observed that although remission cannot be claimed as a matter of right, once the appropriate legislature has enacted a law governing remission, the executive cannot indirectly defeat or subvert its mandate.

20. We have also gone through the decisions cited by Mr. Gaonkar. It is true that the Delhi High Court in its common judgment in the matter of Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) has pointed out a deficiency in the current framework as to the near-total exclusion of victim perspectives in the process of a premature release; the relevant rules prevalent and applicable to the Respondents’ case do not afford any personal hearing to the victim’s family before the SSRB. However, it is important to note that the Inspector General of Prisons briefed the SSRB regarding the representation made by the Petitioner to various Government authorities.

21. Considering that by separate Judgment and Order dated 6th August 2026, we have set aside the State’s rejection of the SSRB’s recommendations and have directed the Respondents’ release from the prison, we are not inclined to allow the present petition. As discussed in the said Judgments, a reformative approach has been adopted for convicts in cases of remission, rather than a retributive one. In such a case, keeping the Respondents in jail when they have already spent over twenty years in prison may not be fruitful in any manner. The decision to direct the Respondents’ release from prison does not in any manner reflect any apathy towards the victim’s family’s emotional resistance. We are alive to the emotional disturbance and the loss that the Petitioner and his family have suffered and may perhaps continue to suffer on account of the Respondents’ acts; however, our Courts have adopted a reformative approach rather than a retributive one. The Supreme Court, invoking Plato, the Greek Scholar and philosopher in the case of Rohit Chaturvedi vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.(2026 SCC OnLine SC 865), observed that punishment is to be inflicted, not for the sake of vengeance, for what is done cannot be undone, but for the sake of prevention and reformation. Thus, the past cannot be changed. Instead, punishment is justified only insofar as it serves a future oriented purpose, mainly, prevention, reform, and the restoration of order.

22. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.