RAWAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this criminal misc, petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Rawail Singh Petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the State of Punjab to release him prematurely in view of instructions (Annexure P-1) issued on 13-4-2001 by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred by Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 161 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that Rawail Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by Sessions Judge, Patiala in case FIR No. 54 dated 22-2-1990 of Police Station Kotwali, Patiala on 11-5-1994. He has completed more than 5 years 3 months in jail. He has remained in jail from 23-2-1990 to 31-7-1990 and then from 10-9-1990 to 10-11-1990, then from 11-5-1994 to 23-8-1994 and then onwards 21-5-1997 to date. On the occasion of Bicentenary Celebrations of the Coronation of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, State of Punjab issued one time instructions (Annexure P-1) for premature release of prisoners who are more than 70 years old and have undergone actual sentence for more than 4 years. He was 80 years old at the time of conviction as recorded in the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. In the ration card Annexure P-2 he was shown as 76 years old in 1990. He is now more than 87 years old. He was entitled to special remission allowed to the prisoners to commemorate the Bicentenary Celebrations of the Coronation of Maharaja Ranjit Singh by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of powers vesting in him under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Article 161 of the Constitution of India. He was entitled to be released forth with as on 13-4-2001, he had undergone actual sentence for more than 4 years and also he was more than 70 years old.

(2.) Respondents-State of Punjab opposed this prayer of the petitioner. It was alleged that his case for premature release was considered under the Punjab Government policy instruction dated 8-7-1991 and as per one time instructions dated 12-8-1998 and 8-4-1999. As per one time instructions dated 12-8-1998 and 8-4-1999, a convict who is guilty of double murder is not entitled to any benefit of premature release. As per instructions dated 8-7-1991, a life convict who has committed double murder has to undergo 12 years actual sentence before being eligible for premature release. His case for premature release was considered and rejected by the Government and he was informed of his decision by the Government.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to premature release under the instructions Annexure P-1, issued by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of powers vesting in him under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 161 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the commission of double murder cannot be viewed as a "heinous crime" and the petitioner will be entitled to premature release even if he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the commission of double murder. In support of this submission, he has drawn my attention to Roop Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 (2) Rec Cri R 132 (Punj and Har) where it was held that a conviction for more than one murder does not come within the ambit of heinous crime. Learned counsel also drew my attention to Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 (4) Rec Cri R 506 (Punj and Har) where it was held that where the convict did not fall in the category of "intractably savage delinquent, he is entitled to claim that his case for premature release be considered under the instructions prevailing at the relevant time.