RAJINDER Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJINDER petitioner was sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life on July 28, 1984 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani and prior to that he was in detention since August 23, 1983. He had undergone actual sentence for seven years eleven months and ten days and bad earned remissions for four years five months and nine days. Total sentence undergone by him inclusive of remissions, less parole period was twelve years and three months. At the time of his conviction he was less than eighteen years of age and, as such, was a juvenile. According to the instructions issued by the State of Haryana premuture release cases of Juvenile life convicts and female life convicts were to be considered after the completion of, six years of substantive sentence and ten years including remissions. The conduct of the petitioner in jail remained good and he had been earning annual good conduct remissions regularly. Pre-mature release case of the petitioner was moved but he was not released. He then filed criminal miscellaneous No. 1073-M Of 1996 in this Court praying for his release from jail wherein directions were given to the respondents to decide his case for premature release within three months from the date of the order which was passed on April 26, 1991. In view of the directions, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected and it was further ordered that the same will be re-considered after one year. The petitioner has now filed the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of, India directing the respondents to release him forthwith

(2.) IN the return filed by the respondents it was pleaded that the petitioner was convicted on July 28, 1984 for an offence under Section 302. Indian Penal Code. So. according to section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure he was to complete minimum sentence of fourteen years without remission before he was to be considered for premature release. However, the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release was sent to the State Government for consideration on October 11, 1989 but the same was deferred for one year in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Along with the reply filed by the respondents copy of the opinion, of the State level committee, who considered the case of the petitioner was placed on record which is as under:

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner was that at the time of his conviction he was less than eighteen years of age and in the judgment, copy of which is Annexure P-1 his age is described as 16-1/2 years. According to the instructions issued by the Government Annexure P-3 the case of juvenile life convict below the age of eighteen years at the time of commission of offence for his pre-mature release was to be considered after six years of actual sentence including under-trial detention period provided the total of such period of detention including remissions was not less than ten years. At the time when this petition was filed, the petitioner had undergone actual sentence of more than seven years and that including remissions of more than twelve years. His case was deferred for one year on the recommendations of the committee but no reason is given as to why it was not decided at that time and was postponed for one year. In the reply filed by the respondents it was alleged that petitioner had committed a heinous crime but as per instructions issued by the Government, in the case of juvenile life convicts even the heinousness of the crime is not to be taken into consideration while deciding the case of his premature release. From the report of the recommendation committee nothing is made out as to why the case of the petitioner was not decided promptly. In the absence of any valid reason for further detention of the petitioner in jail when he is entitled to be considered for his premature release, I deem it fit that the prayer of the petitioner should be accepted.