Main Ram vs State of Haryana

G.S. Chahal, J.

Mani Ram, petitioner by means of this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpurs, holding his further dentin as illegal and a direction to the rerespondent authorities to release him forthwith.

The petitioner was tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar and vide judgment dated 13.10.1983 he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/ or in default further RI for 6 months. As per details in paragraph 4 of the petition, he had undergone actual sentence of 7 years, 2 months and 3 days, besides earning remissions of 4 years, 7 months and 4 days. He claims himself to be a juvenile offender, being below 18 years of age at the time of commission of the offence and under the instructions of the Government, Annexure P2, to have become entitled to premature release. Previously he had come to this Court in Cr. WP 395/1990, claiming premature release, to the respondent authorities having filed a reply that this case was under consideration, the criminal writ petition was dismissed. He claimed that his premature release case has not been decided by the respondentauthorities and further that since he was a juvenile offender, he was entitled to be released.

In the return, it has been stated that the time of admission to Jail on 15.10.1988, the Medical officer of the Jail had recorded his age as 18 years, and as per warrant of conviction, his age had been recorded as 17 years (by appearance 19 years)". Vide communication Annexure R2, the IG, Prisons had asked the Superintendent Central Jai, Hissar to forward the case if he had completed 8 years, 6 months'' substantive sentence, including under trial period and a total of 14 years, including remissions, for the reasons that his age was 19 years, as per conviction warrant.

The petitioner claims that the is an illiterate person; his date of birth was not recorded with the Chowkider and he never joined any school. There facts were so stated in Annexure R4. There is, thus no document to confirm the age of the petitioner. The fact however,remains that at the trial, the petitioner had given his age as 17 years but the learned Addition Sessions Judge had recorded a note, about his age being 19 years from appearance. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the recording of the age from appearance could be deceptive. The approach of the Court of Session was only based on imagination and should not be the deciding factor. At the time of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, had obtained no report of the Medical officer to fix his age.

In Raisul v. State of UP, AIR 1977 SC 1822 an imaginative approach of the trial Court had been adversely cemented upon and the observations of the Court are as follows :

"It is true that the learned Sessions Judge on looking at the appellant though that he must not be less than 24 years of age and the High Court also, on seeing the appellant personally, took the view that the estimate of the age given by the Sessions Judges was correct, but we not think thatthe learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court were right in substituting their own estimate in regard to the age of the appellant and on the basis of such estimate rejecting the statement as to the age made by the appellant. Appearances can often be deceptive. We must, therefore, proceed on the basis that the appellant was below 8 years of age when he committed the offence."

In Pyara Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990(1) Recent CR 453, Jai Singh Sekhon, J. applied the same principle with respect to the case of premature release. Agreeing with the contention of the learned counsel, I conclude that there being no evidence taken by the Court of Session at the trial to challenge the statement of the petitioner that he was 17 years. on the day his statement was recorded, he was a juvenile offender at the time of commission of the offence. Under the instructions Annexure P2, he become entitled to be considered for premature release. The respondentauthorities are hereby directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner, treating him to be a juvenile offender and to decide the matter expensively and preferably within three months. With this direction, the criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.