Prem Singh vs State of Punjab and ors.

G. S. Chahal, J.

By means of this criminal miscellaneous, u/s 482, IPC, read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner claims his detention to be violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to have been unlawfully deprived of the benefit of premature release.

The petitioner was tried for the offence of murder by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur and vide his judgment dated 6.4.79. he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has undergone more than 13 years actual sentence and earned remissions for 8 years and 3 months the has also availed of paroles during this period and except for one solitary incident of 19.9.85 when he was found in possession of Rs. 10/ in cash, coupons worth Rs. 180/ and 100 intoxicating pills, he has not, committed any other jail offence. In view of the guidelines Annexure PI, to P3, he has become entitled to be considered for premature release. His case for premature release has been rejected by the authorities vide Annexure P4 dated 20.11.90. This rejection has been ordered on the following grounds :

a) Apprehension of breach of peace on the release of the convict.

b) Party faction in the village.

c) Convict committed one jail offence.

These circumstances are of no consequence for denying concession of premature release and the authorities have acted in an arbitrary and whimsical manner.

In the return, the fact that the petitioner had undergone 13 years 2 months and 29 days actual sentence and earned remission for 8 years 8 months and 20 days, as on 7.9.91, was admitted. It was further claimed that his case was considered and rejected on merits on 28.11.90.

Annexure P4 is the rejection order relating to the premature release case of the petitioners and so far as relevant for the purpose of this case, it reads as under:

"The mercy petition has been considered keeping in view the factors relevant for such consideration. The facts of the case show that there had been previous enmity between the parties. About five years prior to the present occurrence, on Malika of village Daska was murdered for which Prem Singh convict alongwith three others were prosecuted and Khushal Singh had appeared as a prosecution witness in the said case on 15.6.76, a case regarding murder of Sadha Singh, father of Bhira Singh accused had been registered and Khushal Singh was suspected as one of the accused in the case though he was neither arrested nor challaned. Gurdev Singh one of the coaccused of the convict in this case had earlier appeared as prosecution witness against Khushal Singh on two occasions. There were also security proceedings between the parties. All this shows that there was acute party faction which had led to the present crime.

In fact, even at present, there has been a party faction in the village and one party is led by Khushal Singh complainant and father of Tarlok Singh deceased and the other by Trem Singh convict. In this background, there can hardly be any peace between the parties and there is every likelihood that some other incident takes place if the convict is released prematurely.

Prem Singh convict also did not maintain satisfactory conduct in Jal. He had been promoted as convict night watchman on account of his good behaviour but in September, 1985, he was found selling intoxicating pills. On search, 100 intoxicating pills, Rs. 10/ in cash and coupons, worth Rs. 180/ of Canteen were recovered from him. It is infringement of jail discipline which would have continued for quite some time before the convict was actually caught."

Annexure P3 is one of the guidelines and condition6 thereof reads as under :

"After introduction of Section 433A of Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 18.12.78 since every premature release case of a life 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 81/2 years for adult male prisoners can be taken as one of the guidelines for release on mercy petition."

In view of the judgments of this Court in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 674 ; Iqbal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Report 685 and Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989(1) All India Cr. LR 1019, condition6 has to be deemed to be an independent condition for considering the premature release case of a convict There is force in the contention of the learned counsel that after having undergone more than 81/2 years of actual sentence and total of 14 years, inclusive of remission, he was entitled to be considered for premature release.

So far as `jail punishment'' of 1985, is concerned, that was a stale matter. A Single Bench of this Court in Charat Singh v. State of Punjab and another, Cr. WP No. 1414/1987, decided on 4.8.89, held that after the expiry of three years of the commission of the last jail offence, the petitioner shall be entitled to premature release.

With respect to the ground of there being the likelihood of some incident of violation, taking place in case of premature release of the petitioner. I am of the view that the same is also not a good ground for refusing the concession. In Bhagwat Saran and others v. State of U. P. and ors., 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 504, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under :

"After hearing counsel on either side and considering the affidavit of the respondents filed herein we are satisfied that it is a case where the committee''s recommendations should have been accepted by the Government. The committee had recommended the release of these prisoners after taking into consideration their behaviour inside the jail as well as other factors. The only ground given by the State in the counter affidavit is that after considering their cases sympathetically, keeping in view the law and order situation, they cannot be released." A bald statement like that without any attempt to indicate how law and order is likely to be adversely affected by their release cannot be accepted. In fact there are no reasons. We direct that the petitioners be released forthwith."

In view of the above discussion, I conclude that there was no justified ground for rejecting the premature release case of the petitioner. I hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous and issue a direction to the respondent authorities to reconsider the mercy petition of the petitoiners expeditiously and preferably within three months.

JUDGMENT accordingly.