CHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India relates to grant of premature release of the petitioner (who according to the judgment of the trial Court was 17 years of age). The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide order of Sessions Judge, Jind, dated 5/10/1981.

(2.) The prayer for grant of premature release of the petitioner was declined by the State vide its order dated 4/6/1991 Annexure P/3 on the basis of the recommendations of the State level Committee on the ground that the said convict along with 10 other persons armed with Gandasies, brutally and ghastly killed three persons namely Chand Singh, Gurdev Kaur lying on a cot on account of her being a patient of paralysis and Kartaro who fled but was caught and mercilessly killed. The cause of murder was dispute regarding the land. The Committee after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the manner in which the heinous and brutal murders were committed one after another of unarmed persons and innocent women was of the view that the case is covered under Para 2(d) of the Haryana Government instructions dated 28/9/1988 and recommended that this release be considered on completion of 14 years of actual sentence including under trial period and the State Government accepted the above said recommendations vide impugned order dated 4/6/1991.

(3.) It was pleaded by the petitioner that the impugned order of rejection Annexure P/3 was illegal and arbitrary; that the petitioner had already undergone 10 years and 11 months as actual sentence and he has also earned remissions exceeding six years because of his conduct in jail. It was further pleaded that Para 2(d) of the Government instructions dated 28/9/1988 relates only to adult life convicts who are involved in heinous crimes mentioned therein and not to a juvenile convict whose case would be covered under Para 2(b) of the said instructions. It was also pleaded that the order of rejection has been passed in a mechanical way without application of proper mind.