CHARANJIT LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above-mentioned petitioners have been convicted of offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (for short IPC') in different cases and have been awarded sentence of imprisonment for life. Charanjit Lal was convicted on 10th January 1980, Sunder Lal was convicted on 12th November 1979 and Vijay Singh was convicted on 6th January 1977 They have moved these petitions through Jail complaining of refusal on the part of the Delhi Administration to grant them furlough as envisaged in letter No. F. 18/(27)/55-Home dated 7th March 1958 of the Delhi Administration to the Inspector General of Prisons etc. The relevant provisions of the said letter are reproduced below for ready reference :

(2.) On a bare juxtaposition of the aforesaid guidelines pertaining to parole and furlough it is manifest that they are quite distinct in their nature, scope and content. While a prisoner can be released on parole when he is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for any offence whatsoever and irrespective of the duration of the imprisonment awarded to him, furlough can be granted only in those cases where a prisoner has been sentenced to long imprisonment i.e. five years or more. Further, it is evident that release on parole is designed to afford some relief to the prisoner in certain specified contingencies, for instance, illness or death of member of his family or marriage of the prisoner himself or any member of the family etc. whereas furlough is in the nature of a remission earned by a prisoner by consistent good conduct for over a number of years and it is granted to him as a matter of course if other conditions laid in Part-11 of aforesaid the letter are satisfied. One of the postulates which must weigh with the authorities while granting furlough is that the prisoner's release will not be hazardous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity. Further the period of furlough counts as sentence undergone unless, of course, the prisoner released on furlough commits an offence outside the prison. In other words, while parole is tantamount to more suspension of the sentence for the time being keeping the quantum of sentence awarded to a prisoner in fact, furlough affords double relief in the sense that it gives no only an opportunity to the prisoner to breath fresh air and enjoy the society of his kith and kin etc. outside the prison but also counts towards the total sentence awarded to him, i.e. his total sentence is reduced to the extent he earns remission in the form of furlough by continuous good conduct. As observed by the Supreme Court in Maru Ram, Bhiwana Ram etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1980 SC 2147 :

(3.) These observations were made by their Lordships keeping in view the well settled law that in the case of a prisoner, who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, his imprisonment in law is co-terminus with his natural death in the ordinary course. As held in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1961 SC 600 (604) :