Santokh Singh vs State of Haryana

H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in 1981 and as per the admitted case, has undergone more than 131/2 years of actual sentence and more than 20 years of such sentences along with remissions. His case for premature released was rejected vide Annexure R1 on 30th of Sept. 1991 and, thereafter, vide Annexure R2 on 25th of May, 1992 on the ground that he had committed a heinous crime as defined under Govt. instructions dated 19th of November, 1991 and as such his case was to be considered for premature released only on the completion of 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years with remissions. This action of the respondents has been impugned in the present proceedings.

Mr. P.C. Chaudhary, Advocate (from the Legal Cell) for the petitioner has urged that a look at the motive for the murder and also the manner in which the crime took place would bring the case of the petitioner under category of para 2(b) of the aforesaid instructions and as the petitioner had admittedly completed the requisite period under that paragraph he was entitled to be released prematurely.

Mr. S.S. Gill, learned AAG, appearing for the respondent has, however, supported the reasons given in Annexure R2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as also the instructions of the Government dated 19th of November, 1991 and find that this petition deserves to succeed.

Paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) of the aforesaid instructions are reproduced below :

a) Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment and convicts who have been imprisoned for life for having committed a heinous crime, such as murder with wrongful confinement for extortion/robbery, murder with rape, murder with dacoity, murder under T.D. Act, 1997, murder with untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, murder in connection with dowry, bride burning, murder of a child under the age of 14 years, murder of handicapped or pregnant or murder after abduction or kidnapping, murder on professional/hired basis, murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces or burning/dragging the body as evident from judgment of sentence persistent bad conduct in the prison and those who cannot for some definite reasons be prematurely released without danger to public safety, or convicts who have been imprisoned for life under Section 120B of I.P.C. or life convicts who have been awarded life imprisonment second time under the NDPS Act or life convicts who have been imprisoned for life second time under any offence. Their cases may be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including undertrial period and after earning at least 6 years remissions.

(b) Adults life convicts who have been imprisoned for life but whose cases are not covered under (a) above and who have committed crime which are not considered heinous as mentioned in clause (a) above. Their cases may be considered after completion of 10 years of actual sentence including undertrial period, provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 14 years.

A reading of the two paragraphs quoted above clearly indicates that the State Government itself has identified the categories and nature of crimes to be covered by para 2(a) and those to be covered by para 2(b). These instructions also indicate that the crimes would fall in paragraph 2(a) if the motive for the crime was a base one or the manner of execution of the murder displayed exceptional cruelty whereas all the other murders would come under paragraph 2(b) of the said instructions. It will be seen from Annexure R2 that two persons had been killed in the course of the incident and the murders were committed in the course of an attempt to take possession of certain agricultural land. It cannot therefore, be said that the motive was of such a type which would bring the case of the petitioner within paragraph 2(a). I am, therefore, of the view that the reasons recorded by the State Level Committee, are not based on a proper appreciation of the instructions of November 19, 1991. The present petition, is, therefore, allowed Annexure R2 is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents that the petitioner be set forth at liberty without any further delay.