Mohan Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India relates to grant of premature release to the petitionerdetenu on the ground that he is over 70 years old, totally invalid and infirm prisoner suffering from high blood pressure, heart disease and is almost blind. His left hand is also abnormal. It was further pleaded that the petitionerdetenu was declared as invalid prisoner by the Medical Officer of the jail, and that the detenu is totally infirm and incapacitated prisoner. Medical Board consisting of various specialists visited Central Jail, Amritsar, on or about 14th of June, 1988 and after conducting medical examination of the detenu recommended the release of the detenu on the ground that he was severely hypertensive B.P. was 190/115 nmhg. and he is a case of ischemic heart disease and contracture (persistent muscular contraction or shortening due to spasm or paralysis of muscles etc.) of left hand and wrist, immature senile, cataract both eyes, and was entitled to be released on premature release as per instructions issued by the State Government on 21.8.1986 (Annexure P1) and subsequent instructions dated 27.4.1988 (Annexure P2).

Dr. Ajaib Singh, Officiating Civil Surgeon, Amritsar and Chairman of the Medical Board admitted in his written reply that the petitioner is about 75 years old, suffering from severely hypertensive Blood Pressure 190/115 mmhg. He is a case of Ischemic heart disease contracture left hand and wrist, immature senile, contract both eyes, and, his case was recommended for premature release being inform and incapacitated due to illness, and old age. This aspect of the case was also admitted by the State in its reply. However, it was pleaded that a back reference was made on 19.4.1989 because blood pressure can be kept under control through administration of medicines, and cataract can be cured through surgical intervention and that contracture of left hand does not mean that he had become incapacitated. It was further pleaded that the detenu may be handicapped to some extent in the performance of functions, but he cannot be termed as infirm on that basis, and that the conclusions by the State Government were not arbitrary.

Counsel for the parties were heard. The report of the Medical Board referred to above clearly indicates that the petitioner who is over 70 years of age, is suffering from severe hypertension, high blood pressure, ischaemic heart disease, contracture of left hand and wrist (which would indicate persistent muscular contraction on shortening due to spasm or paralysis of muscles), cataract of both eyes and that detenu is immature senile. Deputy Secretary, Home, who has filed reply on behalf of the respondent No. 1, has misread and misinterpreted the term contracture of left hand wrongly as mere fracture. Apart form this severe handicap the detenu who is over 70 years of age, is suffering from other serious ailments. Chairman of the Medical Board, respondent No. 2, in his written statement specially mentioned that the detenu being infirm and incapacitated due to illness and due to old age, was recommended for premature release. Thus, from the report of the Medical Board consisting of three specialists, two in the medicines and the third in surgery, it is quite patent that the detenu was infirm and incapacitated due to illness, and old age, and he has been rightly recommended for grant of premature release. It is a pity that while making back reference no step was taken by the State for the welfare of the detenu, to direct the jail authorities to give all medical aid to the detenu including treatment from medical specialists and, operation if necessary from the specialists in the medical college, Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar, or at any other wellknown medical institution. In case proper medical/surgical treatment had been given and the medical specialists had subsequently opine that the detenu had fully recovered, the State Government could possibly overlook the opinion of the medical board referred to above, and reject the case of the detenu for grant of premature release on the basis of instructions copies whereof are Annexure P1 and P2.

There is no specific mention in the writtenrely filed either of the respondents that the detenu was given any such medical help or that at present his condition has improved or that the detenu is not incapacitated due to illness. In the absence of any such plea or subsequent report by any medical specialists concerning the present condition of the detenu, the earlier opinion and recommendation of the Medical Board (Annexure P3) would stand, and cannot be permitted to be brushed aside.

It is also pertinent to note that at present the detenu has already undergone more than 6 years of actual sentence (including under trial period of 6 months and 5 days and earned remissions for a period of little over 31/2 years) after his conviction under Section 302 read with 149 and under Section 326/148 IPC which indicate that the petitioner was initially convicted and sentenced concerning vicarious liability. The detenu thus, fulfils all the conditions for grant of premature release on the ground that he is infirm and incapacitated due to illness. After the recommendation of the Medical Board on 14.6.1988 (Annexure P3), the State has neither cared to provide necessary medial help to the detenu, nor it has cared to dispose of the case of premature release of the detenu so far. Thus, in my opinion, it is a fit case for this Court to direct premature release of the detenu and he is directed to be released forthwith, subject to usual safeguards and conditions. This petition is accordingly allowed.