Ram Singh @ Ram Charan Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Ram Singh alias Ram Charan Singh, through this application, seeks the quashment of the order dated 21.5.1997, Annexure P8, with a further prayer that he be released prematurely as he was qualified for premature release as per instructions dated 10.11.1971.

Earlier, the petitioner applied for premature release and his case was rejected on the plea that since he had committed a double murder, in these circumstances, he was not entitled to premature release. The petitioner challenged the order vide Crl. Misc. 20297M of 1996 and vide judgment dated 28.1.1997, the order dated 28.6.1996 was quashed and directions were given to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for premature release in the light of the instructions dated 10.11.1971 within three months. In this judgment, it was specifically stated by the court that double murder per se was no ground to reject the case of the petitioner because the State had not brought its case in the category of "intractably savage delinquents". In pursuance of the order dated 28.1.1997, the State reconsidered the matter and vide order dated 7.5.1997, Annexure P8, again declined the case of premature release of the petitioner on two counts: (i) that the petitioner has committed a double murder. This ground has already been set aside by this court in the judgment dated 28.1.1997. The second defence taken up by the respondents is that the petitioner was more than 20 years of age on the date of commission of the offence and in this regard, the State has relied upon the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge where the age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 21 years.

Mr. V.K. Jindal, counsel for the petitioner, has tried to convince me with the help of the Birth Certificate of the petitioner that the petitioner was born on 22.9.1957; that the offence was committed on 16.12.1975; so, in these circumstances, the petitioner may be taken to be below 20 years of age. If this plea of the petitioner is accepted, then he is supposed to undergo six years only actual sentence and 10 years including remissions as per instructions dated 10.11.1971, Annexure P4, to the petition.

I am not in a position to agree with Mr. Jindal. There is no finding granted by the criminal court or any court of competent jurisdiction that the petitioner was less than 20 years of age on the date of commission of the offence. At no stage of the trial, the petitioner ever asserted that he was less than 20 years of age. Questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings nor the State is bound to rely upon the copy of the birth certificate supplied by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of the second part of the instructions dated 10.11.1971 to the effect that since he was less than 20 years of age at the time of commission of the offence, he should be considered for premature release after serving the actual sentence for 6 years and 10 years with remissions.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, then, submitted that if this contention does not prevail upon the mind of the court, even then the petitioner has qualified for premature release as per first part of the instructions as he is going to serve actual sentence of 81/2 years as on 10.8.1998 and the petitioner by that time also would serve 14 years of sentence including remissions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the directions be given to the respondents to consider the matter in the light of the first part of the instructions dated 10.11.1997 and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time. I find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Resultantly, I partly allow this petition by giving directions to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for premature release according to law and on merits by applying the first part of the instructions, Annexure P4. If the petitioner has undergone 81/2 years of actual sentence and 14 years of sentence including remissions under para 516B of the Punjab Jail Manual, he would be deemed to have qualified for premature release. It is further clarified, at the cost of repetition, that this time the State will not decline the case of the petitioner for premature release under the plea of double murder. The necessary orders after reconsideration of the matter shall be passed by the respondentauthorities within 3 months from the receipt of the copy of this order.

Copy dasti and one copy be sent to the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab.