HARBANS LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 1226/227 of the Constitution of India relates to grant of premature release to the petitioner who along with his other convicts was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda on a 13-10-1979.

(2.) ACCORDING to allegations in the petition, the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence for more than eight and half years and taking into consideration the remissions earned ay him, his period exceeds 14 years. It was further alleged that on completion of requisite period of sentence, the petitioner moved a petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India for grant of premature release on the following grounds :-

(3.) IT was next pleaded that the case for grant of premature release of the petitioner was re-considered by the State Government and rejected vide impugned order dated 4-1-1990, copy whereof is Annexure P-6, on the ground that it was a case of pre-planned murder and not a case of suicide; that the case stood fully proved against the accused-party and that the petitioner cannot be released on the ground that he has undergone the requisite period of sentence and maintained good conduct in jail. Most of these facts were admitted by the State in its return. However, Lajwanti mother of the petitioner was allowed premature release because of old age and also because the father of the petitioner was also an old man and there was none to took after him, whereas the factor which weighed with the Government in granting premature release to Asha Rani younger sister of the petitioner is that she was 30/31 years of age and if detained further, the chances of her marriage would be marred. It was farther asserted that from the facts and circumstances of the case, the motive behind the crime, previous enmity between the parties, part attributed to the convict, and other relent considerations and because of heinousness of crime, the case for grant of premature release of the petitioner was rejected.