Lakhbir Singh vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.

Lakhbir Singh petitioner has been undergoing life imprisonment since 9.8.1980 under orders of the learned Add. Sessions Judge, Amritsar. On the date of filing this criminal miscellaneous, he had undergone 10 years 4 months actual sentence and earned remissions for 6 years and 8 months. He had not committed any jail offence. Although he went on parole, HE was not involved in any other crime. Case for his premature release was moved to the State Govt. in the form of a mercy petition, but the same was rejected on 19.11.90. The petitioner has prayed for his premature release, as he had completed the minimum required period of actual imprisonment. Annexure P9 is the order of the Punjab Government rejecting his mercy petition.

No return has been filed by the State and the contents of Annexure P9 are considered as a reply to the petition.

The instructions for premature release were issued on 7.9.79 and it was decided that mercy petitions submitted to the Governor of Punjab were to be examined by the State Level Committee and recommendations of the Govt. were to be made on the following considerations :

"1. On ground of serious illness that could prove fatal due to continuous detention in jail;

Fixation of responsibility of a particular life convicting gang murder where others are also involved besides the convict who has submitted the mercy petition.

The aspect of young/adolescent age, sex, mental deficiency, grave or sudden provocation and absence of motive and premeditation should also be factors while scrutinishing the copies of the judgment in mercy petition cases.

The old age beyond 70 years can also be one of the factors to grant mercy.

On extreme compassionate grounds like no bread earner of the family and no support from different relations. This will, however differ from individual to individual.

After introduction of section 433A of Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 18.12.1978 since every premature release case of a lifer convict will be taken up after he has completed 14 years actual sentence in jail, a minimum period of 5/6 years for juvenile and women prisoners and 71/2 and 8 1/2 years for adult male prisoners can be taken as one of the guidelines for release on mercy petition.

Cases where subsequent to the announcement of the judgement new facts have come to light which if known to the court at the relevant time would have resulted in acquittal of convict and where the proceedings cannot be reopened according a law."

In Annexure P/9, the facts stated are that the petitioner had undergone actual sentence of 9 years 1 month 6 days and had earned remission for 6 years. He remained on parole for 7 months and 14 days. He has maintained a satisfactory conduct and did not commit any jail offence. The offence was committed on account of previous enmity between the parties and the accused had even earlier attempted to eliminate a few persons of the other party. In such a situation, there was genuine and well founded apprehension of breach of peace and there was no ground fro releasing him on compassionate ground.

Admittedly, the petitioner had been on parole and there is no allegation of his having committed an offence during that period. The law is well settled that some vague allegation regarding apprehension of breach of peace, about the premature release of a lifeconvict, is of no consequence for withholding the concession of premature release. " In Bhagwat Saran & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 1983(1) CLR 504, the only grounds given by the State in the counteraffidavit was that after consideration of the cases of the convict sympathetically,keeping in view the law and order situation, they cannot be released. On these facts, their Lordships held that a bald statement, without any attempt to indicate how law and order is likely to be adversely affected by their release cannot be accepted. Their Lordship ordered the release of the petitioners. 5. A bare reading of the instructions quoted above will show that item No. 6 is an independent condition and it can be well said that if a convict has undergone more than the requisite sentence and a total of 14 years, including remissions, he is entitled to premature release. Similar view was adopted by N.C. Jain. J., in Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab & anr., 1989(1) Recent CR 238 and J.S. Sekhon, J., in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab & anr., 1990(1) Recent CR 674." I, thus conclude that the order dated 19.11.90 Annexure P9, has been passed without properly applying the instructions to the petitioner''s case.

I hereby allow the Criminal miscellaneous and issue direction to the State Govt. to pass an order of release of the convict petitioner, on such conditions, as it may like to impose with respect to the remaining period of sentence.