Zora Singh vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Zora Singh who is undergoing imprisonment for life and is confined in District Jail, Mohindergarh, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for his premature release.

The petitioner was sentenced on 19.4.1982 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, for offences under Sections 302 and 449 I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life. On 12.5.1993 he had undergone actual sentence for 11 years 5 months and 4 days and total sentence undergone including remissions was 17 years 6 months and 7 days. According to the instructions issued by the State Government on 28.9.1988 the case of the petitioner for his premature release was to be considered after completion of 81/2 years of substantive detention and a period of 14 years including remissions. As the petitioner was eligible for premature release his case was recommended by the jail authorities. The State Level Committee considered the matter and in its meeting dated 20.3.1991 decided that the case of the petitioner may be reconsidered after the expiry of one year. The petitioner then filed a Criminal Misc. No. 10210M of 1991 and during the pendency of that petition the State Government issued instructions dated 19.11.1991 according to which the convicts who had not committed heinous crime, their cases for premature release were to be considered after completion of 10 years of actual sentence including undertrial period provided that total period of such detention including remissions was not less than 14 years. The case of the petitioner for premature release was put up before the Committee constituted by the Government for consideration whereupon it was ordered that as the case of the petitioner was governed by para 2(a) of the latest Government instructions, the same shall be considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including undertrial period after earning at least 6 years remissions. This order was passed on 30.12.1992, copy of which was Annexure P4. The petitioner alleged that the order rejecting his case was against law as he had not committed any heinous offence and his case was not covered under para 2(a) of the instructions dated 19.11.1991.

In the written statement filed by the respondents it was alleged that the petitioner along with four others committed the murder of Smt. Swaran during day time on account of some land dispute. The crime was of heinous nature, as an innocent woman was brutely murdered and this fact was taken in to consideration by State Level Committee, which ordered that the case of the petitioner was to be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The solitary question to be decided in this petition is whether the petitioner had committed a heinous crime as described in para 2(a) of the instructions Annexure P3 or his case is governed under para 2(b) of the same instructions. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had not committed any offence as mentioned in para 2(a) of the Instructions Annexure P3. According to these instructions the case of premature release of a convict described therein was to be considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including undertrial/detention period and after earning at least six years remissions if he 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 woman 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 the judgment of sentence, persistent bad conduct in the prison and those who cannot for some definite reasons be prematurely released without danger to public safety, or convicts who have been imprisoned for life under Section 120B of I.P.C. or life convicts who have been awarded life imprisonment a second time under N.D.P.S. Act or life convicts who have been imprisoned for life second time under any offence.

The present petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and this murder was committed after the petitioner and others trespassed into the house of Smt. Swaran. The petitioner has not committed any offence as mentioned in para 2(a) of the above instructions. Though it was a murder of a woman, instructions in para 2(a) are not applicable since the deceased was not a pregnant woman. The case of the petitioner is governed by the instructions in para 2(b) of Annexure P3. Though he committed a murder and was sentenced to imprisonment for life, but his case was not covered under para 2(a). His case is to be considered after completion of 10 years of actual sentence including undertrial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 14 years. The respondents in their return admitted that upto 28.9.1993 the petitioner had undergone substantive sentence of 11 years 8 months and 1 day. The petitioner is, therefore, eligible for consideration of his case for premature release and premature release cannot be denied to him on the ground that he committed a heinous crime.

As a result of my findings I allow this petition and direct the respondents to reconsider and decide the case of the petitioner for his pre mature release under para 2(b) of the instructions Annexure P/3 within three months of the date of receipt of this order.