Joginder Singh vs State of Haryana and another

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

This petition has been filed by the life convict undergoing imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC for premature release.

The petitioner contends that he was arrested on 12.11.1995 and that till 12.2.1996, he has undergone 10 years 3 months actual sentence and that he has also earned remissions of 4 years and 6 months. The petitioner remained on parole for 4 months and 6 days and has definitely undergone more than 10 years actual sentence and more than 14 years sentence including remissions (this was the position alleged on 24.2.1996). The petitioner had earlier filed Crl. Misc. petition 20182M of 1995 (it was decided along with the petition of another petitioner which was Crl. Misc. 9242M of 1995). The judgment of the same has been produced at Annexure P3. According to it, the respondents had not forwarded the case of the petitioner for premature release to the competent authority for its decision because according to the respondents, the petitioner had not completed the actual period of sentence awarded to him. It was directed by this Court in the said judgment that respondents would consider the case of the petitioner if otherwise eligible and would forward the same for decision by the competent authority while taking into account the period of parole enjoyed by the petitioner towards the period of actual sentence undergone by him.

After the said judgment dated 15.12.1995, the respondents passed the order, Annexure P4, dated 20.2.1996 by which they have rejected the case of the petitioner for premature release. It is found from Annexure P4 that case of the petitioner was rejected because he killed his father by firing four shots from his country made pistol on Diwali day and further he has misbehaved with Jail Doctor on 25.7.1993. Annexure P2 is a letter from the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana to the Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, which is regarding the policy of premature release of life convicts. Every life convict whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment and whose crimes are not considered to be heinous can get the benefit of para 2(b) of Annexure P2. The types of heinous crimes are mentioned in subpara (a) of the said paragraph. The case of the petitioner is not covered under the said categories of heinous crimes. The respondents have not been able to show that the act of the petitioner which resulted into crime, is a heinous one. Therefore, the first part of the reasons in Annexure P4 cannot be held to be legal and it is only an arbitrary decision.

So far as misbehaving with a Jail Doctor is concerned, the petitioner has produced at Annexure P5 the proceedings recorded in his history ticket. The proceedings of 25.7.1993 read as below :

"25.7.1993: the prisoner quarrelled with Dr. Bir Singh and also abused him. The said act is against the jail provisions. The prisoner deserves punishment. After recording the statement of the convict, I learnt that the prisoner is innocent. Therefore, I warn him not to commit any mistake in future."

This shows that second reason shown for rejecting the premature release case of the petitioner cannot be substantiated.

It is, therefore, clear that Annexure P4, is arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. The respondents have not taken the directions of the Court seriously. When the direction has been given to reconsider the matter it should have been reconsidered in the framework of the policy. However, the respondents have gone beyond the policy. Moreover, the allegation regarding misbehaviour with the Jail Doctor is not found to be correct. The warning part of Annexure P5 has, therefore, no significance. There is no other reason shown for the rejection of the request of the petitioner for premature release. The first reason stated in Annexure P4 is held to be arbitrary and the second reason is held to be false. When there is no other reason, the prayer of the petitioner should have been allowed (had there been any other reason, it would have certainly been mentioned in Annexure P4).

In view of these reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The order, Annexure P4 is quashed and the respondents are directed to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for premature release by taking into consideration the findings given in the present case and also the directions given to them in Crl. Misc. 20182M of 1995 (Annexure P3). It is hoped that the respondents shall not indulge in giving arbitrary and false reasons for rejection so that the consequences of the same can be avoided. The respondents are directed to decide the case of the petitioner for premature release within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned Advocate for the petitioner.