Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhdev vs State of Punjab and ors.

G.S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukhdev has come to this Court with a criminal miscellaneous under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a direction for his release by accepting his mercy petition.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment de order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur dated 27101980. He had been in custody since 1651980. He had, thus, undergone a total of 10 years and 2 months imprisonment and has earned remission for 6 years and 4 months, as on the date of the petition. He further claims that he has not suffered any Jail punishment and his conduct has been good. Under the instructions he is entitled to premature release. His mercy petition was, however, rejected vide order dated 7121990. Since he had undergone the requisite period under the instructions, Annexures P1 to P3. his case should have been accepted.

In the return filed, the fact of undergoing the period of imprison ment and earning of remissions was admitted, but it was claimed that he had committed one Jail offence on 29188, having been found negligent in the performance of his duties. He was not entitled to be released prematurely, on the sole ground of having undergone 81/2 years of sentence. His case was considered and rightly rejected.

In the rejection order, Annexure R1, the relevant portion dealing with the grounds of rejection may be quoted :

"I have considered the mercy petition on merits. The facts of the case disclose that though Jagat Ram deceased and his brother Nanak Chand had, in good faith,purchased the land in dispute from Amar Singh father of the convict, the convict, his brothers and coaccused, as also their mother, Labh Kaur, refused to recognise the sale because they felt that the consideration money was not adequate and fought relentless battle to take back the said sold land. There had been revenue and civil cases between the parties, in spite of this, in order to dispossess the complainant party and to take forcible possession of the land, in question, the convict, along with his two brothers, Kulwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, as also their mother Labh Kaur, took law in their own hands and eliminated one of the vendees and his son as also the son of the second vendee Nanak Chand. Even the local Panchayat has gone on record to say that the accused party were desperate characters and the security of the complainant party would be endangered in case the convict is released. In this background, Sukhwinder Singh, cannot be released merely because he has undergone the requisite period of sentence. Thus, apprehension of breach of peace in case the convict is released as expressed by the local and District level authorities, is wellfounded.

Sukhwinder Singh convict has not maintained satisfactory conduct in jail. He committed two Jail offences i.e. on 2991988 and 3111988. The State has, thus, taken two grounds for rejection (1) with respect to the motive for which the murder was committed and apprehession of breach of peace, and (2) the petitioner had committed two jail offences.

The plea of the petitioner that he had availed, of parole and furlough, was not contested in the return. ''There is no allegation that while on parole, the petitioner had committed some act which could justify the conclusion that his release was likely to create breach of peace. The law is wellsettled that a mere vague allegation of apprehension of breach of peace has no relevance for withholding the concession of premature release of a life convict.

In Bhagwant Sareen & ors. v. State of UP & ors., 1983 (1) CLR 504, the only ground given by the State in the counteraffidavit was that after consideration of the case of the convict sympathetically, keeping in view the law and order situation, they 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.

The State Govt. had issued instructions Annexure P3, clause 6 whereof reads is follows :

"After introduction of section 433A of Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 18121978 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 years and 81/2 years for adult male prisoners can be taken as one of the guidelines for release on mercy petition."

Admittedly, the petitioner had undergone sentence of 81/2 years and also earned remissions for 6 years and 4 months, thus, totalling 14 years. It has been interpreted in a number of judgments of this Court that this is an independent clause under which the case of a convict for premature release is to be considered. In this context, a reference may be made to Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 1989(1) Recent CR 238 and Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 1990(1) Recent CR 674.

So far as ground of ''jail punishment'' is concerned, in a previous Cr. Misc. No. 2661 M/1991, the State had taken the plea that the jail punishments dated 2981988, and 3111988 had no effect on the annual good conduct remissions as well as for consideration of premature release of the petitioner, under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. This aspect of the matter was, however, ignored while passing the impugned rejection order.

In the light of the above discussion the impugned rejection order Annexure R1 cannot be maintained. This criminal miscellaneous is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the matter of premature release of the petitioner by accepting his mercy petition. The matter be decided within three months.