Lakhwinder Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

G.S. Chahal, J.

Lakhwinder Singh is a life convict under JUDGMENTs dated 981980, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

He claims that he has undergone actual sentence for 9 years and 2 months and had also earned remissions for 6 years 9 months and 26 days and remained as undertrial for 3 months and 7 days. He has also committed no jail offence, nor was he awarded any jail punishment. The Panchayat had recommended his premature release. Under the instructions of the Govt. he is entitled to be released prematurely. His case for premature release was dismissed by the respondentauthorities vide order dated 6101989, Annexure P 5. but the same is not justified. The petitioner has relied on the fact that some other convicts, similarly placed, have been prematurely released.

In the return filed, the facts of the petitioner having undergone actual sentence for 9 years 2 months; earned remissions for 6 years 9, months, besides his undertrial period, are admitted. It is also admitted that he has maintained satisfactory conduct inside Jail. Prior to the murder for which he was convicted and sentenced a civil suit was pending between the parties and an attempt had been made on the life of Hari Singh son of the deceased for which a case under Section 307, Indian Penal Code had been registered and security proceedings initiated. A brother of the petitioner had already been released prematurely so that he could look after his father. The relevant portion of the order Annexure P 5 rejecting his mercy petition runs as under :

"I have considered the mercy petition on merits. The facts of the case reveal that there had been civil and criminal litigation between the parties which formed the motive behind the crime.

These cases are :

1) There was civil litigation between Lakhbir Singh, Gurmej Singh, Gurdev Singh coaccused of the convict on one side, Ajit Singh an eye witness and Gurnam Singh deceased on the other side.

ii) About 56 months earlier to the present occurrence, an attempt was made on the life of Hari Singh son of Gurnam Singh deceased. Samund Singh and Prem Singh. A case under Section 307, Indian Penal Code had been registered against Lakhwinder Singh, convict, Gurmej Singh, Lakhbir Singh and Gurdev Singh coaccused.

iii) Even security proceedings were pending between the parties".

In this background, premature release of the convict merely because the convict has undergone actual sentence for 81/2 years and with remission 14 years cannot be allowed. The apprehension expressed especially by Hari Singh is well founded because he was the person on whose life an attempt had first been made.

The convict has not given any details with regard to his own family and family of his father and as such no adverse inference can be drawn that his parents are old or that there is none to look after them.

The gravity of the offence or the motive of the offence is a factor to be considered by the Court while awarding the sentence. The gravity or the heinousness of the offence is no ground for not granting the benefit of Para 516B of the Punjab Jail Manual. In this view of the matter, I am supported by the observations of N.C. Sain. J. In Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab and anr., 1989(1) Recent C.R. 238.

I hereby allow this petition and issue a direction to the respondentauthorities to decide the mercy petition afresh within three months. In case the same is not decided within the aforesaid period the petitioner shall be released on bail for the period till his mercy petition is decided. subject to his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Amritsar and also an undertaking that he would surrender to undergo the remaining term of his imprisonment in case the same is rejected.