Gurmeet Singh vs State of Punjab

J.S. Sekhon, J.

The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life in a murder case under the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur dated 391981. He was admittedly less than 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. It is further admitted by the respondents that the premature release of the prisoners less than 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence has to be considered after they had undergone 6 years of actual imprisonment including the period of detention and 10 years in all including remissions. It is also admitted that the petitioner has undergone more than 81/2 years of actual imprisonment and in all more than 14 years. The mercy petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government which resulted in filing Cr. W.P. No. 1675 of 1987 which was accepted by this Court on 1611989 vide order Annexure P. 7 and a direction was issued to the State Government to consider the remission of sentence of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was directed to be released on punishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Jullundur. The State Government then rejected the mercy petition of the petitioner vide order Annexure P. 8. dated 15.5.1989. The petitioner then filed Cr. W.P. No. 2422 of 1989 which was accepted by S. D. Bajaj, J. on 6.12.1989 vide order Annexure P. 9. The order of the State Government dated 1551989 (Annexure P. 8) was quashed and it was directed to reconsider the mercy petition of the petitioner for premature release. Accordingly, the State Government did reconsider the mercy petition of the petitioner but rejected it vide order dated 1391990 (Annexure R 1), interalia, on the grounds that there were no compassionate circumstances to prematurely release the petitioner as his two other brothers enlisted in the Army could look after his aged mother. It is further remarked that due to acute enmity between the parties, premature release of the petitioner was not desirable in the interest of law and order position. The report Annexure R. 2 of the District Magistrate, Amritsar was also relied upon in this regard. 2. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has again invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution through this writ petition, inter alia, contending that the impugned order of the State Government declining the mercy petition of the petitioner was arbitrary as his other coaccused namely, Avtar Singh had already been, prematurely released by accepting his mercy petition vide order Annexure P. 10 it is further maintained that the allegation regarding the apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of the petitioner are wellfounded as no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner although he is on bail since March 1989, under the orders of this Court. It is further averred that the report regarding apprehension of breach of peace if the petitioner is prematurely released, being vague is of no consequence.

In the return filed on behalf of the respondents it is maintained that the mercy petition of the petitioner was rightly declined and that the case of Avtar Singh, coaccused of the petitioner was on different footing as the petitioner had committed the murder to avenge the murder of his father committed by the other side.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the return. The relevant portion of Annexure R.I., the order of the State Government rejecting the mercy petition of the petitioner reads as under :

"The Petitioner being below 20 years of ago at the time of commission of offence, his case could be considered after he had undergone 6 years of actual sentence and with remission 10 years. However, this would not imply that he is entitled to release after undergoing the period referred to above. As per practice, while considering cases of remission of sentence whether under Article 161 of the Constitution or under Sec. 432 Cr.P.C. the facts and circumstances of the case, character of the convict, his conduct inside and outside the jail, tendency to revert to crime or to instigate others to commit crime, are duly considered besides grounds of compassionate nature, if any, submitted by the convict. The facts disclose that there had been a longstanding enmity between the parties About 14 years prior to the present occurrence, Anup Singh, brother of Kartar Singh, one of the deceased had been murdered and Kirpal Singh, Dilbagh Singh, the two coaccused of the convict and their father were prosecuted for that murder. Subsequently, Gian Singh, father of Gurmit Singh convict and brother of Kirpal Singh and Dilbagh Singh had been murdered for which Kartar Singh deceased, his father and others were prosecuted. There had been other criminal cases and security proceedings between the parties and the members of one party or the other party had been appearing as witnesses against each other. Thus, when there had been cross murders earlier also and criminal cases as well, there is apprehension of breach of peace in case the convict is released. In this background, premature release cannot be granted merely because the convict had undergone the requisite period of sentence. There is hardly any possibility of peace between the parties :

So for as SLP (Crl) No. 386/88 is concerned, it, pertained to the instructions issued on 21st August, 1986 on the first death anniversary of Late Sant Harchand Singh Longowal. The issue involved was whether the date 19121978 was or was not relevant for considering cases of infirm prisoners. The view of the government was that these instructions did not cover the cases of those convicts after 18121978 when section 433A Cr.P.C. was enforced. The High Court had given the verdict that in the case of infirm prisoners incapacitated by illness, this date was not relevant and this view was upheld by the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 386/88. The case of the convict is, however, not covered under the instructions dated 21886 because the convict is neither old nor infirm. He is hardly 28 years of age. In jail, he has been attending to the allotted labour and has been earning remission regularly since 1981. There is also no certificate issued by the Medical Board to show that he is suffering from any disease or that he is in any manner infirm. The decision of the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 384/88 is not attracted in this case.

Coming to the grounds of mercy, it may be submitted that the father of the convict had been murdered on account of party faction and in fact, the present murder is the offshoot or the murder of Gian Singh father of the convict. The verification has revealed that two of the brothers of the convict namely, Inderjit Singh (who was tried along with the convict but was acquitted) and Harjinder Singh are both employed in the Army. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no one to look after the mother of the convict, who as per verification, is more than 55 years of age.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the mercy petition filed by the convict Gurmit Singh which is hereby rejected. These orders may be communicated to the convict Gurmit Singh through the Superintendent of the Jail concerned."

A bare glance through the same leaves no doubt that Inderjit Singh, brother of the petitioner, was tried alongwith him for the same murder but was acquitted. The petitioner being less than 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the murder, the possibility of his having indulged in this crime under the influence of his brother Inderjit Singh cannot be ruled out. Thus, due to the tender age of the petitioner at the relevant time, it cannot be said that the petitioner had indulged in the heinous crime in order to avenge the murder of his father. If that is so, then the case of the petitioner is rather on better footing than that of his coaccused Avtar Singh who had already been prematurely released by the State Government vide order dated 12101988 (Annexure P. 10). Consequently, the order of rejection of the mercy petition of the petitioner suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.

6A. The concerned official of the State had also taken a wrong view in concluding that the other two brothers of the petitioner enlisted in the Army can look after his aged mother as the contingencies of active service in the Army does not sometimes offer family accommodation. Thus the contention, of the petitioner that there is no adult male member in the family to look after his aged mother appears to be well founded.

The conclusion of the concerned authority that there is apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of the petitioner, if released prematurely, is also illfounded as the petitioner is already on bail since March, 1989 under the orders of this Court and no overt act is attributed to him during this period. Moreover, the report Annexure R. 2 of the District Magistrate, Amritsar, is vague as he has simply agreed with the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tran Taran without disclosing the circumstances which had resulted in coming to the abovereferred conclusion.

In view of the abovereferred findings, there is no option but to, direct the State Government to prematurely release the petitioner on usual terms and conditions. It is ordered accordingly.

JUDGMENT accordingly.