NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed hope that the committee examining the remission plea of convict Ravindra Pal alias Dara Singh, who is serving a life sentence for the 1999 killings of Australian missionary Graham Stuart Staines and his two young sons in Odisha's Keonjhar district, would take a decision soon.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, however, adjourned the matter until August 19.
Before adjourning the case, the Odisha government sought a short deferment, informing the court that the committee examining the remission plea had called for records, which were yet to be made available.
Allowing the state's request, the court posted the matter for further hearing on August 19. "In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to adjourn this matter to 19.08.2026. In the meantime, we expect that the Committee shall take its decision," the court said in its one-page order, accessed by TNIE.
On March 19 last year, the Supreme Court directed the Odisha government to consider and decide within six weeks on Singh's remission plea.
In his application before the apex court, Singh sought the benefit of a more liberal remission policy to secure his premature release after spending more than 25 years in prison.
Notably, Dara Singh was convicted of the brutal murders of Staines and his sons - Philip (10) and Timothy (6) - who were burned alive by a mob led by Singh on the night of January 21, 1999.
A mob led by Singh attacked Staines and his sons while they slept in their station wagon and then set the vehicle on fire. When they tried to escape, the mob, armed with lathis, prevented them from getting out, leading to their deaths. Their skeletal remains were later recovered.
In his plea, Singh sought mercy from the court and said he was committed to "give back to the society" through "service-oriented actions".
He sought directions to the Odisha government to release him under the 2022 guidelines governing the premature release of life convicts in the three cases in which he was convicted.
Singh, through his lawyer, also sought to implead the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as a respondent, saying it had investigated the case.
The Bajrang Dal activist moved the Supreme Court in July 2024 seeking remission, arguing that those convicted in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had been granted remission and released.
Citing the Supreme Court's 2022 order granting relief to AG Perarivalan, one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, Singh sought similar relief.
Invoking the principle of reformative justice, Singh quoted former Supreme Court judge Justice VR Krishna Iyer: "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."
In his plea, Singh said he regretted the offences, stating that he had then been "overwhelmed by distress at the barbaric deeds inflicted upon India by the Mughals and the British".
He also alleged that the Odisha government had failed to act on several representations seeking remission and premature release, violating his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Singh argued that he had already served well beyond the minimum qualifying period of 14 years prescribed under the state's remission policy dated April 19, 2022.
"I am around 61 years age. I have never been released on parole," Singh, originally from Uttar Pradesh's Auraiya district, said in his plea. He also said he was unable to perform his mother's last rites after her death.
The petitioner, who is lodged in Keonjhar district jail, said he acknowledged and deeply regretted the offences committed more than two decades ago.
"In the fervor of youth, fueled by impassioned reactions to the brutal history of India, the petitioner's psyche momentarily lost restraint and it is imperative for the court to scrutinise not merely the actions but the underlying intent, noting that there was no personal animosity harboured towards any victim," Singh said in his plea.
He further argued that his actions stemmed from what he described as a desire to protect the nation rather than personal malice, and sought a "fair evaluation of the circumstances surrounding those tumultuous times".
Citing previous judgments in similar cases, Singh argued that courts had granted remission to life convicts on grounds including good conduct in prison and the period of incarceration already undergone, and sought similar relief.