Mange Ram vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Mange Ram and four other coaccused were arrested in a murder case by the police on 10th May, 1982. They were tried for the offence and ultimately convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, on 20121982. Mange Ram who is at present undergoing imprisonment in District Jail, Rohtak, alleged that he had undergone actual sentence of more than 10 years had earned remissions for 6 years. His conduct and behaviour inside the jail remained good and he was never awarded any jail punishment. He enjoyed parole and furlough on various occasions and there was no untoward incident. His case for premature release was favourably recommended by Superintendent Jail, Rohtak on 11th June, 1991 in view of the instructions issued by the Haryana Government on 28th September, 1988. The case was, however, not decided and then Criminal Misc. No. 5464M of 1991 was filed wherein directions were given to the respondents to decide his case within three months. His case was referred by the Government to rate Level Committee and the Committee came to the conclusion that the case was to be determined under para 2 (b) of the new instructions issued by Haryana Government on 19111991 which required a life convict to undergo atleast 10 years substantive sentence and 14 years sentence with remissions. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Government dated 3131991 preferred Criminal Misc. No. 2698M of 1992 which was decided on 2271992 and the respondents were directed to decide his case for premature release in accordance with the old instructions Annexure P/1 dated 2891988 as he had undergone more than 8/12 years substantive sentence and more than 14 years sentence with remissions at the time of issuance of new instructions dated 12111991 in compliance with this order his case for premature release was set up before the State Level Committee on 791992, but the Committee deferred his case till he completed the substantive sentence for 14 years on the ground that he had committed a heinous crime. The petitioner has assailed this order of the Government dated 791992 Annexure P/4 by filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 2261227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for his premature release in the petition it was averred that the impugned order was unwarranted, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the decision of the Committee itself which was arrived at on 3131992. The order was passed with malafide intention in order to harass him.

In the reply filed by the State it was admitted that the petitioner had undergone more than 9 years actual sentence and 15 years 10 months and 11 days total sentence including remissions. It was contended that his case for premature release was duly considered by the State Government in accordance with the instructions dated 2891988 and it was decided that the case will be reconsidered after completion of 14 years actual sentence by the petitioner as he was guilty of an offence which was so brutal that he did not deserve premature release.

It have heard the counsel for the parties.

it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that five persons were convicted for the murder of one Mulia aged 60 years by Sessions Judge, Rohtak on 20121982 out of whom two were acquitted in appeal. The main accused who was armed with a Pharsa and to whom fatal injury was attributed had expired. The petitioner was armed with a Jaili and he caused only Jaili blow to the deceased on his chest using the weapon as a lathi. The other coaccused of the petitioner who also caused injuries to the deceased with a Jaili had been released by the State Government after his case for premature release was considered. When the coaccused who was similarly situated was given benefit of premature release, the impugned order vide which the case of the petitioner was rejected was discriminatory.

This fact is not denied that conduct of the petitioner in jail remained good and his case for premature release was duly initiated on completion of 8/12 years of actual sentence as per instructions issued by the Government on 2891988. The case, however, remained lingering so the petitioner had to approach this Court. On his petition directions were given to the respondents to decide his case within three months. In compliance with those directions the case of the petitioner was considered and order Annexure P/2 was passed. The State Level Committee which considered the case was of the view that case of the petitioner was covered under para 2 (b) of the Government instructions dated 19111991 and since the petitioner had not undergone the requisite sentence in the jail his case will be reconsidered on completion of 10 years actual sentence including undertrial period and 14 years total sentence including remissions. The petitioner was, however, not satisfied with this order as he was of the view that his case was governed by the earlier instructions Annexure P/1. He again moved this Court and vide order Annexure P/3 directions were given to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner within one month in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government on 2891988. The case of the petitioner was again considered and was rejected on the ground that he was guilty of a brutal offence. I find that when the case of the petitioner was considered earlier the State Level Committee had given findings to the effect that the case of the petitioner was covered under para 2(b) of the Government instructions dated 19111991 Annexure P/6. This clause deals with cases of adult life convicts who had been imprisoned for life but who had not committed a crime which was to be considered heinous as mentioned in clause (a). At that time the case of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that he had not undergone actual sentence for 10 years including undertrial period. The rejection of his case subsequently on the ground that he committed a heinous crime is not justifiable more so when coaccused of the petitioner who caused injuries of the same nature to the deceased was released prematurely.

As a result I accept this petition, quash the order dated 791992 Annexure P/4 and direct the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of para 2 (c) of the instructions dated 2891988 Annexure P/1 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of.