Lachhman Singh vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Lachhman Singh was arrested in a case under Section 302/34 I.P.C. registered at police station Hodal, on 2291981 and after trial he was convicted and sentenced along with his coaccused to under go imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 11.5.1992. Since then he had undergone actual sentence of 10 years 11 months and 7 days and total sentence inclusive of remissions of more than 16 years. The petitioner alleged that at the time of commission of the offence he was 17 years of age and on his conviction he was confined to undergo the sentence of imprisonment for life in Juvenile and Borstal Jail, Hissar. Subsequently he was transferred to Central Jail, Ambala for his treatment of tuberculosis. He was suffering from this disease since 1983. In compliance with the instructions dated 28111987 Annexure P1 issued by the State Government of Haryana, Superintendent Jail forwarded his case for premature release on 1621988 as had already undergone the requisite period of sentence. The State Government declined his premature release and deferred his case for one year. In the meantime State Government issued instructions dated 28988 dealing with the cases of premature release of the convict prisoners of different categories including the juvenile prisoners. Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala in compliance with these later instructions forwarded and recommended the petitioner''s case for premature release which was rejected on the following grounds :

"Premature release case of this life convict was considered by the committee and it was decided that his premature release case may be considered along with the cases of his coaccused."

This order was communicated on 2761991 and copy of the same was Annexure P4. On 19111991 the State Government issued instructions Annexure P5. The case of the petitioner was again recommended by the Superintendent Jail under clause (2)(c) on the ground that the petitioner was juvenile convict but it was rejected on a new ground different then the earlier one, vide order copy of which was Annexure P6. It was further pleaded that the impugned order Annexure P6 was wrong illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper. It was passed without application of mind by the committee to the facts of the case. The petitioner was a juvenile convict and he had qualified for his premature release under the instruction dated 28111987 as back as on 162190 after undergoing years actual imprisonment. Even under the new instructions he had served the requisite period of sentence. The petitioner, thus, filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 1411992 Annexure P6 and directing the respondents to release him forthwith.

In the written statement it was contended that as per commitment warrant issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 4th day of May, 1982, age of the petitioner was 18 years. He was not a juvenile convict as at the time of commission of offence he was not below 18 years. This fact was admitted that the petitioner had undergone actual sentence of more than 11 years and total sentence including remissions for more than 16 years. But it was maintained that in view of the heinous nature of crime that is murder with dacoity, the case or the petitioner was to be reconsidered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence, including under trial period and after earning at least 6 years remissions. It was further pleaded that instructions dated 28.9.1988 had been superseded by latest instructions issued vide Haryana Government Memo No. 31/135/911 JJ(II) dated 19.11.1991.

I have heard Mr. P.C. Chaudhary, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Gill, Assistant Advocate General Haryana, Counsel for the respondents and have perused the records.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was less than 18 years of age at the time commission of the offence and even according to the latest instructions Annexure P5 the petitioner had under gone requisite sentence. His case was wrongly rejected on the ground that he had committed aheinous crime because heinousness of the crime was to be seen only in the case of adult life convicts. The petitioner was not required to serve actual sentence of 14 years before he became eligible for his premature release.

The main question to be considered in the case is whether the petitioner was a Juvenile convict ? The respondents have relied upon the commitment warrant issued by Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 451982 wherein the age of the petitioner was given as 18 years. The case was registered against the petitioner on 22.9.1981 and it will indicate that at the time of commission of the offence the petitioner was less than 18 years of age and that is why he was treated as a juvenile convict and was sent to Juvenile and Borstal Jail, Hissar. At this stage it cannot be urged that the petitioner was more than 18 years at the time of commission of the offence. The petitioner was convicted on 1151982 and when his case for premature release was initiated for the first time on 16.2.1988 he had undergone actual sentence of more than 6 years including under trial period. According to the latest instructions Annexure P5 the case of juvenile life convicts is covered by clause (2)(c) which is as follows :

"Juvenile life convicts below the age of 19 years at the time of commission of offence and female life convicts :

"Their cases may be considered after completion of actual sentence of 8 years including under trial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 10 years."

Clause (a) of these instructions relate to the cases of life convicts who had committed crimes which are considered heinous. Clause (a) relating to the convicts who had committed heinous crime is not applicable to the cases of juvenile convicts.

A perusal of order Annexure P6 will show that case of the petitioner for his premature release was rejected on the ground that he had committed a heinous crime that is murder with dacoity and that is why the State Level Committee recommended that his case may be reconsidered under para 2(a) of the Government Instruction dated 19111991 when he completed 14 years actual sentence including under trial period and after earning at least 6 years remissions. The petitioner however, was not convicted for any offence of dacoity. He was charged only for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and his conviction was recorded under that section alone. Moreover, the instructions dealing with the convicts who had committed heinous crimes applied only to adult convicts and did not apply to a juvenile convict. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State could not advance any argument to justify the passing of the impugned order. The State Level Committee did not consider the fact that the petitioner was a juvenile convict. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside. A similar matter was considered in Jai Gopal v. The State of Haryana and Others, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 3 wherein it was observed that juvenile life convicts were entitled to release after under going 6 years of actual imprisonment provided the total period of detention including remission was not less than 10 years. The case of the petitioner for his premature release was recommended by the Superintendent there times which will show that conduct of the petitioner during his stay in jail was good. The petitioner is suffering from tuberculosis also and there is no circumstance on record debarring the petitioner from his premature release.

As a result I allow this petition, quash the impugned order Annexure P6 and direct the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith on his furnishing requisite bonds.