Sukhmander Singh vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, brought by Sukhmander Singh, a life convict, for issuance of a direction for his premature release.

The petitioner was tried before the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, and convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment of that Court dated July 26, 1982. As on the date of application, he had undergone more than 9 years of actual sentence and earned remissions exceeding 6 years making out a total of 15 years sentence. He was 17 years of age at the time of conviction and under the Rules, he was entitled to be considered for premature release after undergoing 5 years of actual sentence and a total of 10 years including remissions. During the period of his confinement in jail, he was found guilty of certain jail offences. He challenged those punishments in writ petitions No. 3732 of 1989 and 3734 of 1989, and jail punishments dated May 25, 1983, February 13, June 26, 1985, October 2, 1985 and November 14, 1987 were set aside by this Court in those writ petitions. However, a jail punishment awarded on February 9, 1985 still remains intact. The petitioner claims his premature release on the basis of his undergoing requisite period of sentence, and he relies on the instructions Annexures P1 to P3.

In the return filed, the respondents have taken the pleas that the case of the petitioner for premature release had been considered and rejected by the Government on September 11, 1990 and intimation in this regard had been given to him.

JUDGMENT rejecting the mercy petition of the petitioner is Annexure P8. Relevant portion of the order may be quoted :

`I have considered the mercy petition. The facts of the case disclose that the murder was neither the outcome of any grave or sudden provocation nor was it committed without premeditation or motive. The deceased Bhajan Kaur, the step mother of Sukhmandar Singh convict and Tejinder Kaur was his stepsister. They had been living separately from Nachhattar Singh father of the convict and in fact, the 3 children of Bhajan Kaur from the loins of Nachhattar Singh had filed maintenance petitions through their mother Bhajan Kaur. The convict and his father were putting pressure on Bhajan Kaur to withdraw the petition. She, however, refused to oblige them. There was, thus a Strong motive for elimination. Secondly, at the time of occurrence Bhajan Kaur and Tejinder Kaur were lying on cots, it is being night time, and were talking to Surjit Singh complainant when the convict scaled over the outer wall and attacked the two ladies. There was thus, no occasion for Bhajan Kaur etc. to give any provocation to the convict. It cannot, therefore, be said that the convict committed the murder under mental pressure on sudden provocation.

In jail, the convict did not maintain satisfactory conduct. He committed various offences during the course of his imprisonment. On 25.5.83, he was found in possession of 47 intoxication pills and Rs. 31/ were recovered from him. Remission for one month was forfeited and he was put on bar fetters for one month. On the night between 8/9.2.85, he alongwith a few others, under the influence of some intoxicants created nuisance in barrack and on the next morning on medical examination, he was found under intoxication of some during. He was again put on bar fetters for one month. Four days later, alongwith a few others attacked coprisoners Nambardar Kashmir Singh and prisoner, Raju and gave them Injuries Ten days remission was cut and he was ordered to be kept in isolation under para 575 of the PJM. On 2.19.81 he again quarreled with another prisoner, Jit Singh. He was again kept in cell block. He cannot, therefore, be said to be a prisoner of good conduct and cannot therefore, be allowed release merely because he had undergone more than 6 years of actual sentence and with remission 10 years.

His step brother and two step sisters survive and they are as much the legal theirs of Nachhattar Singh as Sukhmander Singh convict is of them. Tejinder Kaur was also injured in this incident. They are potential targets for elimination. The apprehension of breach of peace expressed by the local authorities is quite genuine.

There is nothing to substantiate the submission that the convict is suffering from any disease that may prove fatal on account of continued detention in jail".

The authorities while rejecting the premature release case of the petitioner, were thus influenced by the motive for murder, bad conduct of the petitioner in jail and apprehension of breach of peace. Item 6 of the `guidelines'', Annexure P3 lays down as follows :

"After introduction of Section 433A of Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 18.12.1978 since every premature release case of a life convict will be taken up after he has completed 14 years'' actual sentence in a jail, a minimum of 5/6 years of juvenile and women prisoners and 7.1/2 and 81/2 years of adult male prisoners can be taken as one of the guidelines for release on mercy petition."

In Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990(2) Recent CR 1 Jai Singh Sekhon, J observed that the ground figuring at item No 6 is an independent one. It can be well said that if a prisoner had undergone more than requisite sentence of 81/2 years, and 14 years in all including remissions, he is entitled to premature release. The law is well settled on the point that vague allegations regarding the apprehension of breach of peace on the premature release of a life convict are of no consequence in withholding such concession. Remote apprehension of breach of peace (sic) of released prisoner can be wellsafguard by demanding heavy surety bonds by the concerned authorities. I endorse this view.

In Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991(1) Recent CR 349 a mercy petition had been rejected on the ground that whenever the convict went on parole, there was tension. There was, however no specific report in this regard on the file, nor was any such report relied upon in the rejection order. On these facts, Jai Singh Sekhon, J., held that such like reports are irrelevant for concluding that there is reasonable apprehension of breach of peace if the convict is released prematurely. The rejection order was held to be arbitrary. Applying the above principles, I hold the view that the rejection order on the basis of motive for the murder and apprehension of breach of peace cannot be justified.

While in jail, the convict was awarded jail punishments and the last punishment complained of relates to the year 1985. It was held in Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) Recent CR 490 that the jail punishment awarded to the prisoner shall have no binding effect after the expiry of five years. I contribute that view.

In the light of the above discussion, the impugned `rejection order'' is held to be arbitrary. I hereby issue a direction that the premature release case of the petitioner be reconsidered in the light of the above discussion and the same be disposed of expeditiously and preferably within three months.

JUDGMENT accordingly