Didar Singh vs State of Haryana

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This order will dispose Crl. M. No. 16883M of 1995 and Crl. M. No. 6375M of 1996.

Didar Singh son of Kandhara Singh, a life convict confined in Central Jail, Ambala, has prayed for his premature release by filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was tried in the court of Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in a case registered at FIR No. 206, dated 15.7.1984, under Section 302 IPC and under section 27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Kaithal. The petitioner was accused of committing murder of Angrez Singh and Savinder Singh. The learned Sessions Judge after the trial of the petitioner found him guilty of the offence of murder on two counts under Section 302 IPC and also of the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was awarded life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC on two counts and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 27 of Arms Act. The substantive sentences passed under the two offences were ordered to run concurrently. The judgment convicting the petitioner and sentencing him as aforesaid was delivered on 26.4.1995, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P1. The petitioner was arrested on 15.7.1984 and since then he has been confined in Jail and has undergone 11 years and two months of actual sentence on the date of moving of the present petition i.e. on 4.10.1990. The petitioner also earned remission of about six years and is not guilty of any jail offence and he has been quite obedient and disciplined in the jail. The petitioner seeks benefit under instructions dated 19.11.1991 issued by the State of Haryana for consideration of premature release case of life convicts. Subsequently, the State Government issued instructions dated 4.2.1993 (copy annexure P2). It was mentioned in the petition that substantially the two instructions, referred to above, were same in so far as adult male life convicts are concerned. The petitioner, however, prays that his case for premature release be considered in the light of latest instructions dated 4.2.1993.

According to the petitioner his case is covered under para 2(b) of the instructions dated 4.2.1993 because he is not covered by the categories mentioned in para 2(a) of the said instructions. The Jail authorities, it was averred in the petition, forwarded his case in or about February, 1995 to the said authorities for appropriate order regarding the premature release of the petitioner. The petitioner was, however, not released by the respondent and he filed a criminal misc. petition No. 8199M of 1995 which came up for hearing before this Court on 31.7.1995 and was disposed of by the following order:

"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the case of premature release already pending with the respondent expeditiously but not later than one month from the date of receipt of order from this Court or on receipt of the certified copy of this order from the petitioner.

Sd/ (K.K. Srivastava)

Judge

31.7.1995.

The petitioner, however, contended hat this case for premature release has not been decided by the respondentauthorities. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

Notice of motion was issued to the respondent who puts in appearance and filed written statement of Superintendent, Central Jail Ambala alleging, inter alia that the State Government decided the case of premature release of the petitioner in compliance with the order dated 31.7.1995 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 8199M of 1995. The order was passed on 8.9.1995 by the State Government deciding that the premature release case of the petitioner may be reconsidered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including undertrial period and after earning at least six years remissions under para 2(a) of the Government instructions dated 4.2.1993, a copy of which has been annexed with the written statement as annexure R 1.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG for the State of Haryanarespondent.

A perusal of the order dated 8.9.1995 passed by respondent No. 1 on the basis of the recommendation of the State Level Committee will go to show that the Committee after noticing that the life convict killed Savinder Singh and Angrez Singh, who were his brothers with gun shots for the cause that the deceased persons had refused to give tractor to the accused for sowing Charri crop, recommended that the number of offences specified in para 2(a) of the instructions, is not comprehensive and there may be other incidents of murder which may also be similarly heinous. The present case of the petitioner was found be one as a heinous offence covered under para 2(a) of the Government instructions. Being of the said opinion, the Committee recommended that the case of the petitioner was covered under para 2(a) of the instructions dated 4.2.1993 and the case of premature release could be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including the undertrial period and after earning at least six years remissions. The Government accepted the recommendation of the State Level Committee and rejected the case of pre mature release of the petitionerconvict who was duly communicated about the order vide Endst. No. 21594/GI/G.3 dated 22.9.1995 by the office of the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana Manimajra, Chandigarh. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the instructions dated 4.2.1993 and submitted that the case of the petitioner has to be considered in the light of the instructions and no departure can be made from the clauses of the offence mentioned in the instructions. After referring to the various categorises mentioned in para 2(A) of the instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the case of the petitioner was not at all covered by para 2(a) of the instructions and as such, his case would be covered under para 2(b) of the said instructions. For appreciating the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner it may be useful to refer to para 2(a) and para (b) of the instructions dated 4.2.1993. Relevant portion of para 2(a) of the instructions reads as under:

(a) Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment and convicts who have been imprisoned for life for having committed a heinous crime, such as, murder with wrongful confinement for extortion/robbery, murder with rape, murder while undergoing life sentence, murder with decoity, murder under T.D. Act, 1987, murder with Untouchability (Offence) Act, 1955, murder in connection with dowry, bride burning, murder of a child under the age of 14 years, murder of handicapped or pregnant woman or murder after abduction or kidnapping, murder on professional/hired basis, murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces or burning/dragging the body as evident from judgment of sentence, persistent bad conduct in the prison and those who cannot for some definite reasons be prematurely released without danger to public safety, or convicts who have been imprisoned for life under Section 120B of IPC or life convicts who have been awarded life imprisonment a second time under NDPS Act or life convicts who have been imprisoned for life second time under any offence. There case may be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including under trial period and after alteast earning 6 years remission.

Para 2(b) reads as under:

(b) Adults life convicts who have been imprisoned for life but whose cases are not covered under (a) above and who have committed crime which are not considered heinous as mentioned in clause (a) above. There case may be been considered after completion of 10 years of actual sentence of including under trial period, provided that the total period of such sentence sentence including remission is not less than 14 years.

It will appear from the perusal of para 2(a) that the State Government could place the cases of those convicts who could not for some definite reasons be prematurely released without danger to public safety. This categorically conferred the requisite jurisdiction under the State Government to consider the cases of such convicts who were not specifically covered under the cases mentioned in para 2(a) of the instructions. The State Level Committee considered the case of the petitioner under this clause and after carefully taking into consideration the facts and circumstances in which the petitioner committed murder of his two brothers for a petty cause of refusal to give tractor to him for sowing charri crop, as a case of the nature which was included in the category referred to above. It is not necessary that the State Level Committee should have used the exact words as mentioned in the instructions. Once the State Government reserved to itself the jurisdiction to determine the case of such persons in the said category, the State Government had the necessary jurisdiction to decide the cases of individual convicts and satisfy itself as to whether a particular case was fit to the considered under para 2(a) of the instructions. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction or in exercising inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. will not go into this question as to whether the State Level Committee rightly or wrongly included the case on facts under para 2(a) of the instructions and this Court will not substitute its discretion for the discretion of the concerned authorities. I do not find any illegality in the decision of the respondentGovernment as contained in the order annexure RI. Resultantly, the writ petition is devoid of substance and is dismissed.