GURTEJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted in a murder case on 14-7-81 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Admittedly, he had actually under 9 years, 2 months and 6 days at the time of filling of the petition including the under trial period. Together with remissions earned by him, he had undergone 15 years eight months and 6 days. He made mercy petition for premature release in accordance with the instructions of the State Govt. dated 7-9-1975 and 12-12-1989. The State Government vide order Ann. P-4 dated 18-11-1988, rejected the mercy petition principally on the ground that no compassionate ground had been made out. The petitioner has challenged the aforementioned order as being totally arbitrary and capricious and based on no relevant consideration. In the return it is not disputed that the petitioner had undergone the requisite period which entitles him to be considered for premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution and Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure It is also not disputed that the petitioner's conduct, throughout his incarceration was satisfactory. The order rejecting the prayer for premature release has, however, been sought to be justified on the ground that all relevant factors had been taken note of and it was on consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances that the aforesaid order had been passed. The factors mentioned in this behalf in para 7 of the written statement are conduct of the convict in the jail, his character, tendency to revert to criminal habits or to instigate others to commit crime besides the compassionate grounds mentioned by him. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner stated in the mercy petition that he lost his father a long time back and his mother was an old lady of 62 and he has two minor children and the said members of the family were wholly depending on him. He had also mentioned that he has 3 sisters who were married. In the impugned order Ann. P-4 it has been observed that no circumstance came into being since the commission of the crime which would provide a compassionate ground to the petitioner. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had three married sisters and this fact was, mentioned in the context that there was no one to lend support to the members of the family of the petitioner. It is well known that in our country we do not look towards married daughters or sisters for any sort of financial help. In fact, it is considered against the accepted social norms to do so. It cannot therefore be expected that the married sisters will be able to lend any help to the members of the family of the petitioner. Again the approach in the impugned, order that no fresh circumstance has came into being since the commission of the crime is difficult to appreciate or accept. The prisoner was prevented from making an application for premature release until he had undergone the prescribed minimum sentence according to the instructions of the State Govt. All along the family of the prisoner suffered hardship. Now that he has undergone the requisite period, he was able to move a mercy petition. It would be unfair to take the view that some circumstance should come into existence since the commission of the crime which alone could provide a compassionate ground.

(2.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, I find it difficult to sustain the order of the State Government Annexure P-4 and the same is accordingly set aside. The petition is allowed. It is directed that the case of the petitioner be considered afresh according to law with in a period of three months from today and mercy petition shall be disposed of by a reasoned order. The petition is dispose of in these terms.