Chhatu vs State of Haryana and Others

P.K. Jain, J.—The petitioner, Chhatu son of Puran Ram, a life convict undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Hissar, has filed this petition under Articles. 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his pre-mature release.

The brief facts are that the petitioner along with two others was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, for the offences under Sections 302 and 325/34, Indian Penal Code. He was convicted u/s 302,1.P.C., and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. His appeal against conviction and sentence did not find favour with this Court and the same was rejected by order dated May 16,1983.

The petitioner was arrested in the aforesaid case on 19-4-1982 and since then he has continuously remained in custody. He has undergone 12 years 8 months and 2 days substantive sentence as on 15-9-1995 since the day of his arrest. The split-up of his sentence is as under:-

Year Month Days Under-trial period: 00 08 06 Sentence undergone: 12 08 22 Parole availed: 00 08 26 Remissions earned: 06 00 27 Net undergone in cluding remissions: 18 08 29

The case of the petitioner for his pre-mature release was considered by the State-Level Committee and it was recommended that the question of pre-mature release of the petitioner be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including under-trial period and after earning at least 6 years remissions under para2(a) of the Government instructions dated 4-2-1993 (Annexure P.2) issued by the State of Haryana. Accordingly, the case for the pre-mature release of the petitioner was rejected. This action of the respondent has been impugned in the present petition.

According to the averments in the petition, the case of the petitioner falls within para2(b) of the Instructions (Annexure P.2) and not within para 2(a) of the said instructions. In the reply filed by the respondents, the reasons that persuaded the State-Level Committee to take the aforesaid decision have been re-iterated.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

To appreciate the case of the petitioner, it is essential to make a reference to paras 2(a) and (b) of the instructions-Annexure P.2, which are reproduced below :-

"2(a) Convicts whose death sentence Their has been commuted to life impri cases sonment and convicts who have been may be imprisoned for life for having com considered mitted a heinous crime, such as, after murder with wrongful confinement completion for extortion/robbery, murder with of rape, murder while undergoing life 14 years sentence, murder with dacoity, mur- actual der under T. D. Act, 1987, murder sentence with Untouchability (Offence) Act, including 1955, murder in connection with under-trial dowry, bride burning, murder of a period child under the age of 14 years, and murder of handicapped or pregnant after women or murder after abduction or earning kidnapping, murder on professional at least /hired basis, murder exhibiting bru- 6 years tality such as cutting the body into remission. pieces or burning/dragging the body as evident from judgment of sent ence, persistent bad conduct in the prison and those who cannot for some definite reasons to prematurely released without danger to public safety; or convicts who have been imprisoned for life u/s 120B of IPC or life convicts who have been awarded life imprisonment a second time under NDPS Act or life con- victs who have been imprisoned for life second time under any offence.

(b) Adults life convicts Their cases may be con- who have been impri- sidered after completion soned for life but whose of 10 years of actual cases are not covered sentence including un under (a) above and who der-trial period, provid have committed crime ed that the total period of which are not considered such sentence including heinous as mentioned in remission is not less than clause (a) above. 14 years.

A reading of the aforesaid paragraphs would indicate that the State Government has itself classified the offence of murder in different ways for the purposes of pre-mature release. Once this classification has been made, the question of pre-mature release of a convict will have to be considered strictly in accordance therewith. A case falling under para2(b) of the instructions cannot be rejected by observing that the offence of murder was a heinous one. The obvious reason is that in every murder there is an element of brutality, and murder in itself is a heinous crime. Paragraph 2(a) deals with a situation where the murder is motivated by lust, greed or avarice, those are the cases of human instics, or where it has been exceptionally brutal in its execution. A convict who has committed a crime which is not considered heinous as classified in para 2(a) of the instructions falls in a separate category and his case for pre-mature release is to be considered after completing of 10 years of actual sentence including under trial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 14 years, as envisaged by para 2(b) thereof.

6A. In the present case, there was a dispute over a piece of agricultural land between the petitioner and his brother Ballu Ram. Civil and criminal litigations between them were pending. On 19-4-1982 at about 1.00 p.m. the petitioner along with two other persons had gone to the fields and found Harish Chander, Balbir and Ram Kumar harvesting the gram crop. The petitioner and his two accomplices objected to the same, whereupon Balbir remonstrated, that the land was in their cultivation and his father had also obtained a stay order from the civil Court. These remarks enraged the petitioner who fired a shot with his rifle at Balbir Singh hitting him under the clavicle bone on the right side which injury proved fatal. These allegations do not fall within the ambit of the various categories of the offence of murder as contained in para 2(a) of the instructions (Annexure P.2). The necessary result is that the case of the petitioner then falls within the residue para 2(b) of the instructions (Annexure P.2). The approach of the State Level Committee in bringing the case of the petitioner within the ambit of para 2(a) of the instructions is thus erroneous and its consequent order is liable to be quashed.

As a result, this petition is allowed. Order Annexure R.I qua the petitioner is hereby quashed The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner will be released to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Sirsa, on the usual terms and conditions.