P. VASANTHA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the convict, who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences under Sec. 302 IPC, with a concurrent sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 392 r/w. 397 IPC, among other offences. Since he had completed more than 14 years of imprisonment, he sought for premature release under G.O.Ms.No.488, Home (Pri-IV) Department, dtd. 15/11/2021, as well as other similar Government Orders. His request for premature release was rejected through the impugned Government Order dtd. 20/5/2024 passed in G.O.(D).No.604, Home (Prison-IV) Department, predominantly on the ground that since he was also convicted for the offence under Sec. 392 r/w. 397 of IPC, he was ineligible for consideration, as per paragraph 2(A)(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.508, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dtd. 18/11/2021. The other reason assigned for rejection of the petitioner's request for premature release is that he had not completed 14 years of sentence as on 15/9/2023 and hence, he is not eligible for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.430, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dtd. 11/8/2023 and also for premature release under the Advisory Board Scheme. The aforesaid impugned Government Order is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner has already undergone 7 years of sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under Sec. 392 r/w. 397 of IPC. The first reason assigned by the Government for treating the prisoner as ineligible for consideration, in view of his conviction under Sec. 392 r/w. 397 of IPC, would be impermissible, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P.Veera Bhaarathi' reported in '2019 (18) SCC 71', wherein the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken into consideration the life convict prisoner who had already undergone the sentence for much lesser offence and had extended benefit of premature release by overruling the objection of the Government. The relevant portions of the judgment in P.Veerabhaarathi's case (supra), which incidentally arose from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, reads as follows:-

(3.) As held above, since the life convict has already undergone the sentence for the lesser offence, he would be entitled for the benefits of the liberal construction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.