RABI PRAKASH AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a life convict detained in Balasore District Jail has challenged the action of the opposite parties in not accepting his prayer for premature release in terms of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code'). Petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. 70 of 1977 and was taken to jail custody on 1-9-1978. By judgment dated 23-1-1979 learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Judge was confirmed by this Court in appeal. On completion of fourteen years' of imprisonment, a reference was made to the State Government as required under Rule 518(1) of Orissa Jail Manual (in short, 'Manual') for consideration of the question whether petitioner was to be released. The State Government was of the view that it was not desirable to release the petitioner, Petitioner takes a plea that he has already been inside jail for fourteen years without remission. He was allowed to go on parole on several occasions. On supposition, conjectures and surmises the State Government has refused to direct his release. Therefore, he has prayed for a direction to the State Government to consider the matter.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Orissa in Law Department, it has been indicated that petitioner, a life convict (No. 8019/A) has on erroneous premises sought for release from custody on completion of fourteen years' imprisonment. Petitioner's case was referred to I.G. of Prisons under Rule 518(1) and (2) of Manual to the State Government for consideration of premature release. After receipt of the proposal from I.G. of Prisons, Superintendent of District Jail, Balasore, S.P. and Collector, Jharsuguda were required to give their opinion. The S. P. and Collector declined to recommend premature release of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a terror in the locality and the local residents are mortally afraid of him, relations of the petitioner are still inimical to him. Therefore, premature release of petitioner will be detrimental to the peace of the locality and it will also not be safe in the interest of petitioner to be released as hostility still subsists. The State Government considered the entire matter in its proper perspective and rejected the proposal on 18-3-1997.

(3.) Petitioner has given instance of eight persons to contend that they were similarly situated. This stand has been refuted by State Government on the ground that originally case of those persons for premature release was considered by the State and their request for release on completion of fourteen years of substantive sentence was rejected. Subsequently when they completed twenty years of imprisonment, their case was again considered in terms of Rule 708-A of the Manual. At that stage, Government on consideration of long tenure of custody has directed release. Stand of petitioner that he was released on parole has been disputed. Accusation which led to the trial and conviction are that he brutally murdered his family members by firing and stabbing. While considering the question whether premature release would be desirable and that of petitioner in the background of retaliatory possibilities, safety of local residents is also taken into consideration.