RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJ Kumar-petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 5.12.2003 (Annexure PI) passed by the Additional Director General of Police, Jails Department, Punjab, vide which the recommendation made by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala regarding premature release of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the case of the petitioner for premature release is not covered by the Instructions dated 14.8.2002 issued by the State Government as the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime for the murder of his wife.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted under section 302/34 IPC for the murder of his wife vide judgment dated 8.8.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala and has been awarded sentence of life imprisonment. The allegations against the petitioner were that on 25.1.1994 at about midnight an altercation took place between the petitioner and the deceased as to whey he had come so late and why he had consumed liquor. The petitioner caught hold of his wife and Rakesh Kumar, brother of the petitioner, who is a co-accused poured kerosene oil on her and fire was lit by a match stick, due to which she expired in the hospital. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced on the basis of dying declaration made by the deceased wife. Now, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 8 years, 6 months and 14 days on the date of filing of the petition, i.e., on 26.3.2003. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he had earned a remission of 7 years, 5 months and 23 days, therefore, he has already undergone a total period of more than 16 years, including the aforesaid remission. It has been further stated that the State Government has issued instructions on 14.8.2002 in exercise of the powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India to remit the unexpired sentence of imprisonment for life and to grant special remission to prisoners. A copy of the Instructions has been attached as Annexure P3. According to the said instructions, if a male prisoner who was 20 years or above old at the time of commission of offence and has undergone actual sentence for more than 8 years and with remission more than 13 years lie is entitled for premature release. The case of the petitioner for premature release was duty recommended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala but by the impugned order dated 5.12.2002, respondent No. 2 rejected the recommendation regarding pre-mature release of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit in view of the exclusion Clause VI of the aforesaid Instructions.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the prayer of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had murdered his wife by sprinkling kerosene oil, therefore, the said crime was a heinous one and in such cases the benefit of premature release is not available, as per the exception Clause VI of the Government Instructions.