DAYA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Daya Singh, who was convicted under section 302t Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Hissar, on 9th November, 1972, has filed this petition praying that the respondents be directed to consider his case for premature release.

(2.) The controversy in this case relates to the age of Daya Singh on the date (26th March, 1971) of the commission of the offence of murder. My attention has been drawn to copy of memo No. 66 (201)-133-68/17691 dated 18th July, 1968, containing a decision of the Government of Haryana with regard to the premature release of prisoners whose age on the date of the commission of the offence was said to be less than 20 years. The relevant part of the memo reads :It is common knowledge that when the statement of the accused is recorded by the court, the accused gives his age whatever he wants and that age is recorded, although the Presiding Officer of the Court may give a note that by appearance the accused may be of an age different from what he had given. The age as given by the accused or the age, which the court considers to be reasonable age by appearance, is incorporated in the judgment as the age is recorded in the Commitment Warrant sent to the Jail. The age described as such cannot be considered to be judicially determined because in such cases the exact age is not an issue on which the court is required to give a judicial decision. Of course where the age is judicially determined in the manner that a decision is given on the issue regarding age, there is no question but to accept that age. The difficulty has arisen because quite often the age of a convict in the court and the jail records is mentioned differently at different stages, and while sending their recommendations the jail authorities generally send to Government the following information regarding age (a) Age as given in the Commitment Warrant recorded by the Sessions Judge when sending the prisoner to the jail after the announcement of the judgment. (b) Age of the convict given by him. when his statement was recorded without oath during trial in the Court of Sessions. (c) Age of the convict given in the judgment of the Sessions Judge. (d) Age of the convict entered by thejail doctor in the jails recorded at the time of admission.

(3.) It further deserves mentioning that in the above-said memo, are the following decisions taken by the Government: (iii) Where there is a difference between the age given in the statement of the accused in Court and that given in the Commitment Warrant or in the judgment, and only one of it shows the convict to be under 20 years at the time of the commission of offence, the case may be referred to the Standing Medical Board for opinion, unless the convict can produce a documentary evidence in the form of an authentic school certificate relating to age. Efforts should be made to have such cases referred to the Standing Medical Board immediately on conviction. (iv) It should be opened to Government to refer any other case to the Standing Medical Board also where there is some element of doubt appearing regarding the correct age of the convict.