Sher Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

J.S. Sekhon, J.

Sher Singh petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life for the murder of Inder Singh under the orders dated 3121980 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore. It is admitted in the return that the petitioner has by 2451989, undergone 8 years, 11 months and 15 days of actual sentence besides earning remissions to the extent of 6 years and 5 days. It is not disputed that the conduct of the petitioner in the jail has remained good throughout. The mercy petition filed by the petitioner under Article 161 of the Constitution was not being disposed of promptly. The petitioner then approached this Court in C.W.P. No. 1342 or 1989 wherein S.S. Grewal, J. vide order dated 281989 directed the respondents to dispose of his mercy petition for premature release within four months. On getting no response from the respondents regarding the disposal of his mercy petition. the petitioner has again filed this writ petition, contending that by now he had undergone 9 years and seven mouths of actual sentence and 15 years and 7 mouths in all including remissions earned by him.

In the return it is stated by the respondents that the mercy petition of the petitioner for premature release was dismissed by the concerned authority after due application of mind. The order of dismissal has been annexed as Annexure R.I.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

No doubt. the petitioner had claimed that he was 17/18 years old at the time of the commission of the offence and that his case for premature release was required to be considered as per instructions Annexure P. 3 dated 12121985, of the State Government, yet all the same, that is not of much consequence in this petition as the petitioner has undergone more than 9 years of actual sentence because as per the above referred instructions, the case of the convict who was more than 20 years of age at the time of commission of offence and had undergone 81/2 years of actual sentence was to be considered for premature release. The perusal of Annexure R. 1 shows that the concerned authority had concluded that the petitioner had committed the murder of Inder Singh due to previous motive as he suspected the deceased to have given secret information and got recovered pistol from his possession. It being a case of single murder with a single knife blow, the mere presence of motive would not make it that gruesome which would entail the nonrelease of the petitioner prematurely under the above referred instructions. The petitioner had claimed premature release on the basis that there was nobody else in the family to look after his old parents and that he was still unmarried. The concerned authority had rejected this contention on the ground that there was nothing on the file to show that the parents of the petitioner were too old. The concerned authority was expected to dispose of the mercy petition after obtaining the report of the local authorities qua the grounds taken in the petition. Thus, this approach of the concerned authority is certainly illegal. On the other hand, the petitioner had made specific averments in the petition about his parents being too old to look after themselves and there being no evidence on the file to prove otherwise. normally the concerned authority should have accepted the version of the petitioner.

The matter does not rest here as the prescribed authority for rejecting the mercy petition for premature release has taken into consideration that Mst. Dhano widow of Inder Singh deceased had appeared as an eyewitness against the accused in the murder case and that she apprehends danger to her life and the life of her minor children at the hands of the petitioner if released prematurely. The relations of the deceased would not relish the release of the accused prematurely. It is not acceptable that simply because Mst. Dhano had figured as an eyewitness against the petitioner in the case relating to the murder of her husband, the petitioner would try to kill her especially as the previous motive was confined to Inder Singh deceased only and it is not a case of that type where the murder took place due to dispute betweenthe two families over the possession of land or some other cause.

Consequently for the reasons recorded above there is no escape but to conclude that concerned authority had rejected the mercy petition of the petitioner without application of its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The concerned authority is directed to reconsider the mercy petition of the petitioner in the light of the observations of this Court and dispose it of within three months of this order. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall continue to remain on bail on furnishing fresh bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Ferozepore, undertaking to surrender before the authorities in case of dismissal of his mercy petition.

This petition stands disposed of accordingly.