Het Ram vs State of Haryana and Others

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—Petitioner-accused is seeking premature release.

Facts of the case are that for an offence of murder, petitioner was arrested on 7-3-1974. He was convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Court on 21-1-1975 and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He preferred an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed on 8-8-1978. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner was on bail from 4-4-1978 but despite dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner surrendered before the police on 26-4-1979. On 4-9-1981 he was released on parole for four weeks but he surrendered only on 26-3-1989, though he was to surrender on 3-10-1981, Thus, he committed jail offence for which he was adequately punished.

Petitioner''s contention is that till the date of filing of the petition, he has undergone 11 years 4 days actual sentence inclusive of under trial period and has earned remissions of 6 years and 5 months. Thus, he has under gone total sentence of 17 years 5 months, Hence under the instructions issued by the Haryana Government, he is now entitled to be considered for his premature release, Respondents have wrongly declined his prayer.

The State in its reply has objected that the petitioner was convicted for committing/murder of a woman, who was to appear as a witness in a criminal case against the petitioner. He was granted parole for four weeks on 4-9-1981. Instead of surrendering on 3-10-1981, he jumped bail and absconded and surrendered only on 26-3-1989. Thus, he was absconding for 7 years, 6 month and 21 days. During this absence, he committed another offence and was involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 25 Arms Act and 5 of Terrorists and Distruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1988. He has undergone only 10 years, 10 months and 21 days substantive sentence. Hence, his prayer was declined. His case can be considered by the State Government only after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including under trial period and also after earning at least 6 years remissions.

Facts of the offence for which the petitioner was convicted arc reproduced above. It is also an admitted fact that he jumped bail while he was granted parole and he remained absent for 7 long years, 6 months and 21 days. He committed jail offence. No doubt, he was punished for that but that reflects on his conduct. During his abscondation period, he is alleged to have committed criminal offence under Sections 25 of Arms Act and 5 of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1988, No doubt, he is acquitted for these offences but it becomes obvious that despite punishment of life imprisonment, the petitioner has not improved his behaviour and style of life. This concession of premature release is given to the convicts with a view to reclaim them and to give them an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves in the society again, but if conduct of the convict is otherwise despite confinement in jail, and he has not shown any sign of moral upliftment and non-inclination towards criminal activity, in my considered view, only on the basis of counting years of confinement, he is not entitled to be released prematurely.

Respondents have admitted that after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including under trial period and after earning 6 years'' remissions, his case will be again considered by the State.

In view of the above facts, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner after he completes actual sentence period of 14 years inclusive of under trial period as he has already earned 6 years, remissions.