The High Court has quashed the State Government’s rejection of premature release for life convicts Rohan Pai Dhungat and Jovito Ryan Dos Remedios Pinto and Shankar Tiwari ordering their premature releases in 2006 Mandar Surlakar Murder Case.
The High Court has ruled that the state cannot deny remission solely based on the heinous nature of the original crime or on speculative demands of absolute certainty regarding future behavior.
The case traces back to August 2006, when four law students—Rohan Dhungat, Shankar Tiwari, Nafiyaz Sheikh and Jovito Pinto—conspired to kidnap 16-year-old Mandar Surlakar to extort a ransom of ₹50 lakh from his father. Mandar was abducted on August 14, 2006, and assaulted. His body was recovered near Ponda the following day, with post-mortem reports confirming death due to strangulation and head trauma caused by baseball bats.
In June 2014, the Panaji Children’s Court convicted the accused for murder, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed their conviction in March 2019 but declined the prosecution's prayer for life imprisonment without remission, explicitly observing that reformation remains a legitimate sentencing goal.
Having completed over 14 years of actual imprisonment and over 20 years of total sentence including remissions, the convicts became eligible for review under the Goa Prison Rules, 2006. On May 21, 2025, the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) unanimously recommended their premature release. The Board cited their Completion of higher studies (including LLB coursework, Master's degrees, and diplomas), Satisfactory conduct as convict wardens, artistic contributions, and active engagement in prison rehabilitation activities and favorable reports from the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour (IPHB), the District Magistrate, the Probation Officer, and Jail Authorities.
Despite the SSRB's unanimous backing, the State Government rejected the recommendations in December 2025 and January 2026, relying on adverse opinions from the trial court and objections raised by the Superintendent of Police (North Goa) and the victim's father, Deepak Surlakar. The State argued that the murder was pre-planned and cold-blooded, and that future conduct outside a controlled environment could not be predicted with "absolute certainty".
Setting aside the State’s rejection orders, the High Court emphasized several crucial principles governing criminal justice and penology, citing a recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the High Court observed that the heinousness of a crime stands exhausted at the sentencing stage. Denying remission solely on past gravity reduces remission to a retrospective reaffirmation of guilt rather than an assessment of present reform.
The High Court labeled the State's demand to predict future behavior with "absolute certainty" as irrational and legally untenable. Applying such an absolute threshold would permanently bar any life convict from premature release, effectively defeating the reformative theory of punishment.
Citing classical philosophy and landmark rulings, the High Court noted that continued incarceration when a prisoner has demonstrated clear evidence of reformation serves no purpose other than retributive vengeance. The High Court observed that "A criminal justice system that refuses to look beyond the gravity of the offence to the offender's transformation will betray its reformative ideal particularly at the remission stage."
While ordering the premature release of the petitioner convicts, the High Court declined a request by the victim's counsel to stay the judgment. However, to ensure continued good conduct, the Bench directed the convicts to report to the Station House Officer (SHO) of their local police station once a month for the first six months, and once every three months for the subsequent six months.
