RATTAN KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the two separate writ petitions are seeking directions to the State for their premature release as according to them they have already undergone over 14 years rigorous imprisonment. Their plea is that their cases have been recommended by the Jail Superintendent within the ambit of paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual and hence they are entitled to be released forthwith.

(2.) Rattan Kumar is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 508/87. Vijay Singh who was a co-accused with him in the murder case has filed a separate petition which has been numbered as Criminal Writ Petition No. 517/87. They were found guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated the 6th January, 1977. As they were convicted prior to the enforcement of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they do not have to mandatorily undergo 14 years actual rigorous imprisonment. As per the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents, Rattan Kumar has undergone a total period of sentence of 16 years 4 months and 14 days. This period includes remissions earned by him for good conduct. As on 30th September, 1987, the unexpired portion of sentence in his case was 3 years 7 months and 16 days. Vijay Kngh has undergone total period of sentence including remissions of 15 years 11 months and 11 days as on 30th September, 1987. His unexpired portion of sentence was 4 years and 19 days, as on that date. As per the provisions of Paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual, their cases for premature release were put up before the Sentence Revising Board alongwith the recommendations of the Superintendent, Jail, Tihar. The Board in its meeting held on 25th June, 1987 considered the cases of the petitioners but did not recommend the same. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Board has been annexed with the returns. The reasons for rejecting them arc as follows : "Rattan Kumar s/o Balram The convict alongwith two of his accomplices namely Vijay Singh and Laxmi Narain, killed Smt. Kesra Devi by strangulating her with the motive of stealing of her ornaments. It was the case of robbery-cum-murder. The case of his co-accused Vijay Singh s/o Ram Narain, is placed at Sr. No. 22 of this agenda. The convict was 22 years old at the time of offence. He has undergone a sentence of 14 years 11 months and 18 days including remissions and undertrial period as on 30-9-86. The Jail authorities have recommended his case on the grounds that he has shown improvement in his conduct and promoted as convict night watchman. The local police have strongly opposed the release on the grounds that there is an apprehension of breach of peace. The Chief Probation Officer has also not recommended the release on the same grounds as the police have mentioned. 225 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board feels that the case of convict Rattan Kumar s/o Balram is not a fit case for recommending his premature release. Vijay Singh s/o Ram Narain The convict is a co-accused of Rattan Kumar s/o Balram whose case has been considered at Sr. No. 21 of this agenda. The facts of the case are common. The convict was 23 years old at the time of offence. He has undergone sentence of 14 years 4 months and 21 days including undertrial period and remissions as on 30-9-86. The Jail authorities have recommended his release on the ground of satisfactory conduct of the convict. The local police has strongly opposed his release apprehending breach of peace in the locality. The recommendation of the Chief Probation Officer is not in favour of the release. In view of the above facts and circumstances the Board feels that the case of the convict Vijay Singh s/o Ram Narain, is not a fit case for premature release."

(3.) The Administrator of Delhi has agreed with the recommendations of the Board. The petitioners are challenging the; decision of the Board. It is urged in the petitions that "rich and influential convicts have managed to attain their freedom by various means but a poor common convict like the petitioner is forced to suffer in silence." From the record it seems that rule nisi was issued in Rattan Kumar's case (Cr. Writ 508/87) but in the other case of Vijay Singh (Cr. Writ 517/87) only notice to the State to show cause why rule nisi be not issued was ordered. Arguments in these two cases were also heard alongwith other similar petitions, a number of which already stand decided We issue rule D.B. in Cr. Writ No. 517/87 also.