DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking the release of the petitioner prematurely. The petitioner, who is stated to be more than 88 years, of age, was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, Shri B. L. Gulati vide his judgment dated 17-9-1984. It is averred that his case was recommended for premature release at the time of the visit of the Chief Minister, Haryana to Hissar Jail on 25-1-1988. The matter was then referred to the Inspector General of Prisons but the respondents rejected his case on the ground that the crime was of heinous nature. It is alleged that the decision of the respondents is illegal as they have not considered his good conduct and old age.

(2.) IN the reply filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 600, that imprisonment for life is to be treated as imprisonment for the whole life for the convict and he cannot claim his premature release unless the State reduces or remits the remaining portion of sentence of a convict through a written order under Section 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim his premature release as a matter of right. It has been added that the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment five times for five murders each under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to fine under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. Besides this, two years rigorous imprisonment was awarded to him under Section 447, Indian Penal Code and similarly two years rigorous imprisonment was awarded to him under Section 148, Indian Penal Code. According to the respondents, the Haryana Chief Minister at the time of his visit to the Jail on 25-1-1988 had directed the consideration of the petitioner's case for premature release. Accordingly the case was sent to the Inspector General of Prisons but he has informed vide his communication dated 7-4-1988 that he (petitioner) may not be released prematurely keeping in view the heinous nature of crime committed by him. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had, vide its decision, dated 9-4-1991 in Criminal Misc. No. 1582 M of 1991, copy Annexure P-3, directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for premature release observing that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the petitioner's prayer only on the ground of heinousness of the crime and, therefore, directed the respondents to reconsider the case within three months without taking into account the he inousness of the crime. The respondents thereafter have again considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the direction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The case was put up before the State Level Committee set up by the Government for Consideration of premature release cases of life convicts. The Committee after considering all aspects of the matter and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case deferred his case for one year.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner then relied on the judgment of this Court in Shri Sampuran Singh Sandhu, Advocate v. The State of Punjab and others, 1975 All India Services Law Journal 252. This was a case dealing with the question of reservation of seats for demobilized Indian Armed Forces personnels. The respondents before the Court had contended that the reservation of seats for the demobilized Indian Armed Forces personnels is a concession accorded to this class by the Government and that a concession cannot be claimed as a matter of right. This argument was held to be devoid of any force by, this Court. It was observed that Article 6 of the Constitution enjoins on the State to afford equality of opportunity in matters relating to service to all the citizens. If the petitioner belongs to class to which some benefits have been by the State, non-consideration of his case for the receipt of these benefits would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution. This judgment is also inapplicable to the facts of the instant case, for the petitioner has not quoted any instance if any other similarly placed convict has been prematurely released by the respondent. Had it been so, he could put forward a claim that he is being discriminated or denied equality of. opportunity in the matter of premature release but such is not the case before this Court.