Sunder Pal Singh vs State of Haryana

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is a petition filed by Sunder Pal Singh (hereinafter described as the petitioner) under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying that instead of reconsidering the case of premature release of the petitioner, he should be directed to be released, forthwith on usual terms and conditions.

The petitioner was tried alongwith others for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life upto 5.2.1995, the petitioner has undergone substantive sentence of 13 years 10 months and 5 days including the undertrial period. He has earned remission of 5 years, 7 months and 7 days. There is nothing to indicate that he was found guilty of any jail offence during the undertrial period of his sentence.

The case of premature release of the petitioner was initiated and considered by the State Level Committee. The request as such was rejected. He had approached this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 5828M of 1992. A direction was issued to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of orders passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 8119M of 1992 and Crl. Misc. No. 8120M of 1992 and also in Crl. Misc. No. 3054M of 1994.

In compliance with the directions of this Court the case of premature release of the petitioner was considered by the State Level Committee. It was pointed out that petitioner along with 11 other persons had murdered two persons and injured 5. There was a dispute about the piece of land. The State Level Committee concluded that petitioner has committed 2 gruesome murders in a premeditated manner and that the case of his premature release will be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including undertrial period.

The petitioner again approached this Court for directing the respondents to release him forthwith on usual terms and conditions. It is asserted that the coaccused has since been released forthwith and there is no reason to discriminate between the petitioner and others.

In the return filed by Raj Kumar Gupta, Superintendent, District Jail, Sirsa, there is no dispute raised about the petitioner having undergone the period of sentence mentioned by him. It has been pointed out that State Level Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is stated to be falling under Para 2(a) of the Instructions dated 4.2.1993.

Copy of the Instructions dated 4.2.1993 has been placed on record. Paras 2(a) and 2(b) are being reproduced below for the sake of convenience:

"2(a) Convicts whose death sentence has been committed 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 while undergoing life sentence, murder with dacoity, murder under T.D. Act, 1987 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 women 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 prisons and those who cannot for some definite reasons be prematurally released without danger to public safety, or convicts who have been imprisoned for life under section 120B of IPC or life convicts who have been awarded life imprisonment a second time under 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 including undertrial period and after earning at least 6 years remission.

(b) Adults life convicts who have been imprisoned for life but whose cases are not covered under (a) above and who have committed crimes which are not considered heinous as mentioned in clause (c) 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 remission is not less than 15 years."

It is clear from the aforesaid that pertaining to premature release the Instructions dated 4.2.1993 issued by the State of Haryana, a clear distinction has been made between heinous crimes and other adult life convicts, who may have been imprisoned for life, but those cases are not covered under Para 2(a) of the said Instructions. Under Para 2(a) the cases covered are of serious nature and the same have been detailed which have already reproduced above. The case of the petitioner does not fall in paragraph 2(a) of the said Instructions. Therefore, the impugned decision/order of the State Level Committee dated 4.10.1994 cannot be accepted to be valid in the eyes of law, keep in view the Instructions dated 4.2.1993.

In addition to that the coaccused Bilu son of Aziz and Dessi son of Aziz had approached this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 8119M of 1992 and Crl. Misc. No. 8120M of 1992. The defence offered by the respondents was similar. This Court on consideration of the reply, quashed the order of the State Committee and directed the respondents to release those petitioners. Learned State counsel failed to explain as to how the case of the petitioner can be distinguished from those of the other coaccused. Indeed one cannot be discriminated.

Consequently I accept this petition and direct the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith on usual terms and conditions.