Rattan Singh vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Rattan Singh petitioner was tried and convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and was awarded life imprisonment by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 24.11.82. He was arrested in the case on 7.2.1982. He has undergone more than 16 years of sentence including remissions granted to him up to 24.9.1991. As per averment made in the petition he never committed any jail offence and no jail punishment was ever awarded to him. His conduct and behaviour in jail remained good. He was released on parole and furlough on eight occasions and no cause of complaint ever arose during this period. He moved his mercy petition for pre mature release in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government but the same was rejected vide order Annexure P4. The relevant part of the order is as under :

"The mercy petition has been considered keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the guidelines instructions issued by the Government from time to time. The verification carried at local level reveals that the aggrieved party had filed a suit for compensation against the accused party and witnesses are being examined in that case. In this background in case the convict is released pre maturely there is every likelihood that the convict would try to harm the aggrieved party. In such a situation there can hardly be any peace between the parties. It is not a fitcare where prerogative of mercy may be exercised in favour of the convict Rattan Singh. The mercy petition is hereby rejected."

The petitioner has now filed petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for his pre mature release. The petitioner made averments in the petition that he was tried along with six other accused out of whom 2 were acquitted. The remaining 5 were awarded life imprisonment. Two of his coaccused had been released by the State Government while exercising the powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and the third accused had been granted adinterim bail by his court. His case should have also been dealt in the same manner as that of his coaccused. He had minor children and aged parents and there was non in family to proved them bread and shelter.

In reply filed to the petition it was admitted that the petitioner had undergone actual sentence for 8 years 10 months and 16 days and he had earned remmissions for 6 years 6 months and 15 days as on 22.12.1990. His case was considered on merits and was rejected by passing a speaking order. The petitioner could not claim premature release as a matter of right. As a suit for compensation was pending against the accused party there was likelihood that the petitioner would try to harm the aggrieved party in case he was released.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute between the parties that the cases of premature release of the life convicts are to be considered by the State Government while exercising its powerof clemency under Article 61 of the Constitution of India in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Government. Para No. 6 of the instructions issued on 12.12.1985 provides as under :

"After introduction of Section 433A of Cr.P.C. with effect from 18.12.1978 since every pre mature release case of a lifer convict will be taken up after he completed 14 years actual sentence in a 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 the present case the petitioner has undergone more than 16 years of sentence including remissions. The State Government has rejected his mercy petition on the ground that the aggrieved party has filed a suit for damages against the accused party which is pending in Court and witnesses are still to be examined. In case the petitioner was released there was apprehension that he may try to cause harm to the other party. There are, however, no valid grounds for nursing this apprehension. It is not made out whether any party ever complained to the respondents about the conduct of the petitioner or his coaccused who had already been released. The petitioner was released on parole or furlough for 8 times and he never tried to harm any one belonging to the aggrieved party. Since the occurrence took place in the year 1982 the civil suit must also be pending for the last many years. The petitioner is not stated to have misbehaved either in Jail or when released on parole or furlough. In a premature release case the petitioner is released after execution of proper surety bond undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour and if there is any likelihood that he may cause breach of peace, that contingency can be meet by demanding a heavy surety. The coaccused of the petitioner, namely, Gurnam Singh and Prem Singh who were convicted on the same charge, have already been granted pre mature release by the State Government and the State Government is expected to apply uniform stick on the basis of instructions issued by it from time to time. Thus, it is a clear case of discrimination and non application of mind by the concerned authorities even though the petitioner has underdone the required period of sentence. Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 689, is an authority on this point.

Considering the circumstances of the case, the State Government is directed to grant premature release to the petitioner forthwith on usual terms and conditions. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

Petitioner allowed.