SHANMUGAVALLI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of one Muthuramalingam, who is now confined in Central Prison, Madurai as a Prisoner bearing C.P. No. 4565. She has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking to extend the benefit of the order passed by the Government in G.O. (Ms) No. 64, Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 01.02.2018 in favour of her husband and to release him prematurely.

(2.) According to the petitioner, her husband Muthuramalingam was falsely implicated in a case in Crime No. 6 of 1994 on the file of Kovilangulam Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148 , 324 , 307 and 302 of IPC and Section 25 (1) of Indian Arms Act and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and it was taken on file as S.C. No. 10 of 1996. Subsequently, the case was made over to the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram. It is further stated by the petitioner that her husband and 19 others faced trial in the criminal case mentioned above and after completion of trial, by judgment dated 30.05.2006, her husband was convicted by the trial court for the offences under Sections 148 , 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, however, the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. It is further stated that such conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court was also confirmed by this Court in Crl.Appeal (MD) No. 323 of 2006 on 22.12.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the husband of the petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, by a judgment dated 09.12.2016, modified the sentence imposed on her husband. According to the petitioner, her husband had completed 12 years of imprisonment from the date of his conviction and still languishing in jail. While so, the Government issued G.O. (Ms) No.64 dated 01.02.2018 ordering premature release of life convicts who have completed 10 years of actual imprisonment on the eve of Birth Centenary of former Chief Minister of the State Dr. M.G. Ramachandran. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though her husband had completed 12 years of imprisonment, the respondents failed and neglected to prematurely release him by applying the aforesaid G.O. (Ms) No.64 dated 01.02.2018 in his favour. It is further submitted that the third respondent, for the reasons best known, did not include the name of her husband in the list forwarded to the first respondent for premature release purportedly on the ground that adverse report was filed by the Probation Officer against her husband. The petitioner further proceeded to contend that her husband has been granted Parole by the third respondent on several occasion subject to certain conditions and her husband strictly adhered to such conditions and returned to jail after expiry of the parole period. Further, when the husband of the petitioner was in parole, no untoward incident took place, while so the so called adverse report filed by the Probation Officer is untenable. In effect, it is the contention of the petitioner that her husband is eligible for premature release as per the aforesaid Government Order, however, the benefit of the said Government Order has not been extended in his favour. The petitioner also relied on the order dated 01.02.2018 passed by this Court in WP No. 21226 of 2018 filed by one of the co-accused in which this Court directed the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner therein within a period of six weeks. According to the petitioner, she had also sent a representation dated 01.12.2018 to the respondents requesting them to consider the premature release of her husband, however, till date, the respondents did not pass any orders thereof. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per G.O. (Ms) No.64 dated 01.02.2018, those life convicts, who have completed ten years of incarceration, are entitled for premature release. Even though the husband of the petitioner had completed 12 years of incarceration, for the reasons best known, he was not released by the respondents. The petitioner also submitted a representation on 01.12.2018 seeking premature release of her husband, but till date, the respondents did not consider the same and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to issue appropriate direction to the respondents.