GURMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life in a murder case under the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur dated 3-9-1981. He was admittedly less than 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. It is further admitted by the respondents that the premature release of the prisoners less than 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence has to be considered after they had undergone 6 years of actual imprisonment including the period of detention and 10 years in all including remissions. It is also admitted that the petitioner has undergone more than 8-1/2 years of actual imprisonment and in all more than 14 years. The mercy petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government which resulted in filing Cr. W.P. No. 1675 of 1987 which was accepted by this Court on 16-1-1989 vide order Annexure P. 7 and a direction was issued to the State Government to consider the remission of sentence of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was directed to be released on punishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Jullundur. The State Government then rejected the mercy petition of the petitioner vide order Annexure P. 8. dated 15.5.1989. The petitioner then filed Cr. W.P. No. 2422 of 1989 which was accepted by S. D. Bajaj, J. on 6.12.1989 vide order Annexure P. 9. The order of the State Government dated 15-5-1989 (Annexure P. 8) was quashed and it was directed to reconsider the mercy petition of the petitioner for premature release. Accordingly, the State Government did reconsider the mercy petition of the petitioner but rejected it vide order dated 13-9-1990 (Annexure R 1), interalia, on the grounds that there were no compassionate circumstances to prematurely release the petitioner as his two other brothers enlisted in the Army could look after his aged mother. It is further remarked that due to acute enmity between the parties, premature release of the petitioner was not desirable in the interest of law and order position. The report Annexure R. 2 of the District Magistrate, Amritsar was also relied upon in this regard. 2. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has again invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution through this writ petition, inter alia, contending that the impugned order of the State Government declining the mercy petition of the petitioner was arbitrary as his other co-accused namely, Avtar Singh had already been, prematurely released by accepting his mercy petition vide order Annexure P. 10 it is further maintained that the allegation regarding the apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of the petitioner are well-founded as no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner although he is on bail since March 1989, under the orders of this Court. It is further averred that the report regarding apprehension of breach of peace if the petitioner is prematurely released, being vague is of no consequence.

(2.) IN the return filed on behalf of the respondents it is maintained that the mercy petition of the petitioner was rightly declined and that the case of Avtar Singh, co-accused of the petitioner was on different footing as the petitioner had committed the murder to avenge the murder of his father committed by the other side.

(3.) COMING to the grounds of mercy, it may be submitted that the father of the convict had been murdered on account of party faction and in fact, the present murder is the off-shoot or the murder of Gian Singh father of the convict. The verification has revealed that two of the brothers of the convict namely, Inderjit Singh (who was tried along with the convict but was acquitted) and Harjinder Singh are both employed in the Army. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no one to look after the mother of the convict, who as per verification, is more than 55 years of age.