Charan Singh vs State of Haryana and anr.

S. S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India relates to grant of premature release of the petitioner (who according to the judgment of the trial Court was 17 years of age). The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide order of Sessions Judge, Jind, dated 5101982.

The prayer for grant of premature release of the petitioner was declined by the State vide its order dated 461991 Annexure P, 3 on the basis of the recommendations of the State level Committee on the ground that the said convict along with 10 other persons armed with Gandasies, brutally and ghastly killed three persons namely Chand Singh, Gurdev Kaur lying on a cot on account of her being a patient of paralysis and Kartaro who fled but was caught and mercilessly killed. The cause of murder was dispute regarding the land. The committee after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the manner in which the heinous and brutal murders were committed one after another of unarmed persons and innocent women was of the view that the case is covered under Para 2(d) of the Haryana Government Instructions dated 2891988 and recommended that this release be considered on completion of 14 years of actual sentence including under trial period and the State Government accepted the above said recommendations vide impugned order dated 461991.

It was pleaded by the petitioner that the impugned order of rejection annexure P3 was illegal and arbitrary; that the petitioner had already undergone 10 years and 11 months as actual sentence and he has also earned remissions exceeding six years because of his conduct in jail. It was further pleaded that Para 2(d) of the Government instructions dated 2891988 relates only to adult life convicts who are involved in heinous crimes mentioned therein and not to a juvenile convict whose case would be covered under Para 2(b) of the said instructions. It was also pleaded that the order of rejection has been passed in a mechanical way without proper application of mind.

The State in its return pleaded that the petitioner while committing the offence even did not spare a handicapped lady who was cut into pieces by the petitioner and his coaccused; that the case of the petitioner falls under Para 2(a) of the new instructions issued by the State of Haryana dated 19111991 and his case can only be considered after completion of minimum imprisonment for 14 years. It was further pleaded that the State Level Committee and already considered the case for premature release on 20.31991 and held that the petitioner''s case falls under Para 2(d) of the old instructions dated 2891988 and as such his case for grant of premature release is not fit to be considered.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

At the time when the case of the petitioner was earlier on considered by the State Level Committee as well as by the State Government, the old instructions dated 2891988 were in force in the State of Haryana. Clause 2(d) of the old instructions dated 2891998 covers the cases of only adult life convicts and not of juvenile life convicts below the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence. Thus the heinousness of the .crime was not a legal or'' valid ground for rejecting the case of premature release of the petitioner under the old instructions. Even under the new instructions dated 19111991 Para 2(c) covers the case of juvenile life convicts and not Para 2(a) which to my mind relates only to the cases of adult life convicts. Wording of Para 2(b) also confirms my view in this respect. The said clause relates to adult life convicts who have been imprisoned for life but whose cases are not covered under Para (a) and who have committed crime which are not considered heinous as mentioned in Para (a). Separate category of juvenile life convicts finds mention in clause 2(c) of the new instructions. The petitioner in the instant case was 17 years of age as is apparent from the age mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court. His case would thus be clearly covered by Para 2(c) of the new instructions dated 19111991. It is, quite apparent that earlier on case for grant of premature release ''of the petitioner was not properly considered by the competent authority which declined the case mainly on the ground of heinousness of the crime. Since the petitioner has already completed actual sentence of more than 8 years including undertrial period and the total period of such sentence including remissions exceeds ten years, his case can be legally reconsidered by the competent authority for grant of premature release even according to the new instructions. The impugned order of rejection Annexure P. 3 is set aside and the State Government is directed to reconsider the case for grant of premature release of the petitioner according to the new instructions.

For the foregoing reasons, the State Government is directed to reconsider the case for grant of premature release of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above within a period of four months from today by passing a speaking order. This petition is accordingly allowed. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, for compliance.