Sukhcharan Singh @ Mithu vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.

Sukhcharan Singh, Petitioners is a life convict, under orders of the Sessions Judge. Ferozepur, dated 10.10.1981. He has undergone 9 years and 9 months, actual sentence, and also earned remissions for 6 years. He moved a mercy petition to the State Govt under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, but it was rejected on 29.3.1990 vide copy of order Annexure P.4.

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ and ordering his premature release.

In the return filed, the pleas regarding actual imprisonment undergone and the remissions earned by the petitioner were admitted. It was further stated that the respondent authorities had duly considered his mercy petition and rejected it on merit. While considering his case, all the facts and circumstances had been taken into account. The murder had been committed as a result of premeditation.

In the order Annexure P4, it has been recorded that the conduct of the petitioner in jail was satisfactory. Baljit Singh (deceased) was a witness to the Will, executed by an aunt of the petitioner in favour of her brother''s son. The accused and his brother had felt that they had been deprived of a sizable piece of land, which, otherwise, they might have inherited. In this background, apprehension of breach of peace expressed by the District Level Authorities was genuine.

Instructions were issued by the State Govt. as the condition on which mercy petitions submitted to the Govt. Punjab are to be examined and clause 6 of the instructions issued on 7.9.1979 is to the following effect :

"6. After introduction of section 433A of the Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 18.12.1978 since every premature release case of a lifer 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 adults male prisoners can be taken as one of the guidelines for release on every petition."

It is not disputed that the prescribed period of sentence has been undergone by the petitioner. He has maintained satisfactory conduct during his stay in jail and did not commit any jail offence. No document has been placed on record to show that an inquiry was held to confirm if there really existed some apprehension of breach of peace. The background in which the murder was committed was hardly relevant to reach the conclusion that there were chances of breach of peace. The law is well settled that vague allegations regarding apprehension of breach of peace are not relevant for withholding the concession of premature release. In Bhagwat Saran & ors. v. State of UP & ors., 1983(1) CLR 504, the only ground given by the State in the counter affidavit was that after consideration of the cases of the convicts sympathetically, keeping in view the law and order situation, there cannot be released. On these facts, their Lordships held that a bald statement, without any attempt to indicate how law and order is likely to be adversely affected by their release cannot be accepted. Their Lordship ordered the release of the petitioners.

A bare reading of the relevant instruction, quoted above, will show that the same is an independent condition and it can be well said that if a convict has undergone more than the requisite sentence and a total of 14 years, including remission, he is entitled to premature release. Similar view was adopted by N.C. Jain,J, in Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab and anr, 1989(1) Recent C.R. 238 and J.S. Sekhon, J. in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and anr., 1990(1) Recent C.R. 674. I, thus, conclude that the order dated 23.9.1990, Annexure P4, has been passed without properly applying the instructions to the petitioner''s case.

I hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous and issue a direction to the State Govt. to pass an order of release of the convictpetitioner, on such conditions, as it may like to impose with respect to the remaining period of the sentence.