Khem Singh vs State of Haryana and ors.

A.S. Bains, J.

The petitioner is a life convict and is under going imprisonment in Central Jail, Ambala. He was convicted and sentenced under section 302 or the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala by his order dated 18th January, 1973. He was awarded death sentence but on mercy petition, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the Governor of Haryana on March 21 1974. Accordingly, he has undergone 16 years 9 months and 10 days R 1 including remissions.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the state has failed to consider the case of the petitioner in the of the judgment in Maru Ram v. Union of India A.I.R. 1980 S. C. 2147, as was directed by this, Court vide order dated January 4, 1984.

The stand taken by the respondents is that the total period undergone including remissions by the petitioner is 16 years 10 months and 14 days and that the Haryana Government has issued general instructions vide Memo No. 43/19183JJ (2) dated 27 February, 1984, that the premature release case of the life convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment by the Governor/President of India on mercy petitions shall be considered after the completion of 14 years of their actual substantive sentence. Copy of the aforesaid instructions is attached with reply as Annexure R.1.

Mr. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner faced with this situation, then canvassed that the instructions contained in Annexure RA. are not applicable to the case of the petitioner as these are not retrospective in nature and are applicable only in those cases where the death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment after 2721984. Admittedly death sentence of the petitioner was commuted before 2721984 i. e. on 2131974 by the order of the Governor of Haryana. In para 3(1) of the aforesaid instructions it has been mentioned as under :

(i) The adult male life convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to like imprisonment.

(After completion of 14 years of substantive sentence).

Their Lordships in Maru Ratia''s case (supra) interpreted wording of section 433A Cr.P.C. Which is as follows :

(ii) Where a sentence of death..........has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment."

In Maru Ram''s case the words `has been'' were interpreted by the Supreme Court and it was held that this provision was prospective in nature and the persons convicted earlier to the coming into force of section 433A would be entitled to the benefits accruing to them from the remission scheme and that section 433A would not stand in their way. In the present case also the word `has been'' have been used in the impugned instructions as in section 433A, Cr.P.C., so these instructions cannot be held to be retrospective in nature. Since the sentence of the petitioner was commuted earlier to the coming into force of the present instructions, the petitioner cannot be forced to undergo actual 14 years of substantive sentence. It is settled law that ordinary penal statutes cannot be interpreted liberally but have to be interpreted strictly. Thus, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it cannot be held that the impugned instructions have retrospective effect and the petitioner whose sentence was commuted earlier to the issuance of the present instructions cannot be directed to undergo actual 14 years of sentence.

For the reasons recorded, this petition is allowed and the State Government is directed to consider the case of the petitioner without taking into consideration the instructions issued on 2721984.