(1.) The petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on two counts by the trial Court vide its order dated January 13, 1980 under Section 302/34, I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is admitted case of the parties that by the September 14, 1988 the convict had undergone 9 years 1 month and 6 days of actual, imprisonment including the period of detention. He earned remissions for 6 years, 3 months and 28 days. The petitioner has sought premature release on the ground of having undergone more than 14 years sentence including remissions. It is mentioned in the order Annexure-P-5 that the case of the petitioner for premature release was declined on the ground that he has committed a heinous crime by killing two persons along with others and that there is reasonable apprehension of danger to the life of Gurnam Singh, as earlier, during parole, the petitioner and his father had looked with an evil eye towards Gurnam Singh, an eyewitness. It is maintained by the respondents that remissions of Sentence is a sole prerogative of the State Government as held in Kehar Singh v. U.O.I. (Special Leave Petition Criminal No. 3084/88) by the Supreme Court.
(2.) There is no dispute that the power of clemency rests with the State Government or the Central Government as the case may be, but all the same, State Government is to be guided by the rules/instructions laid down by itself in such like cases. Previously, Para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual provided guidelines in such like matters. It inter alia provided that in case of convicts above 20 years at the time of their conviction, were required to undergo 14 years sentence including remissions before their case for premature release can be considered by the State Government.
(3.) The aspect of young/adoldescent age, sex, mental deficiency, grave or sudden provocation and absence of motive and premeditation should also be the factors while scrutinising the copies of the judgements in mercy petition cases.