SURJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this order, I shall dispose of Crl. Writ Petition No. 1075 of 2013 titled Surjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others" and Crl. Writ Petition No. 1076 of 2013 titled "Harinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others" as these involve identical questions of law and facts for adjudication.

(2.) THE petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to release the petitioners pre -maturely on usual terms and conditions as per government instructions dated 8.7.1991.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") pertaining to FIR No.27 dated 29.4.1994 registered at Police Station Kurali, District Roopnagar and were awarded imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Roopnagar on 15.10.1997. The criminal appeal preferred by the petitioners in this Court was dismissed on 15.10.2001. Surjit Kaur petitioner has already undergone more than 16 years 07 months actual sentence and more than 24 years 07 months including remissions. Harinder Singh petitioner has also suffered custody for the period equal to that of Surjit Kaur, his mother. The District Magistrate recommended the cases of the petitioners for grant of pre -mature release in the light of government instructions dated 8.7.1991 (Annexure P -1) but the case of Surjit Kaur was rejected vide order dated Nil bearing endorsement No. G.I.G./J -4/5498 dated 25.3.2013 and the case of petitioner Harinder Singh was rejected vide Memo No.1/119/2012 - 5G7/231 dated 27.2.2013. It is argued with vehemence that once the State government has formulated a policy for pre -mature release of life convicts and others and categorised the offences which fall in the category of heinous crime and the period of custody to be suffered by those convicts as actual imprisonment as well as imprisonment with remissions in order to become entitle to the benefit under the policy, the respondent -State is obliged to honour and follow its policy in letter and spirit. It is further argued that the cases of the petitioners have been wrongly rejected with the finding that the meaning of life imprisonment is to remain in jail till last breath. It is further argued that the administrative authorities are not competent to sit in appeal over the findings of the Court and in the absence of any such finding by the trial Court or court in appeal that imprisonment for life awarded to the petitioners would mean jail till last breath, the impugned orders cannot be allowed to sustain and, therefore, liable to be set aside.