RAJA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner along with 11 co-accused were convicted for offences under section 302 etc. IPC, on 15th January, 1983. As of today, the petitioner has admittedly undergone 13 years 8 months and 20 days actual sentence and a total sentence 19 years 5 months and 27 days. The case of the petitioner is that his case was covered under sub-paragraph 2 (b) of the Instructions of 1991 and as such he was entitled to be released prematurely on the completion of ten years of actual sentence and 14 years with remissions, the period which he has already undergone. The petitioner has also averred that two of his co-accused namely, Dessi and Billu had already been ordered to be released by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 8119-M of 1992 and Cri. Misc. No. 6120-M of 1992. The case of the petitioner was also considered, but the State Level Committee was of the opinion that as the crime committed by the petitioner was a heinous one, his case was covered under paragraph 2 (a) of the instructions and, as such, he was liable to be considered for premature release only after having completed 14 years of actual imprisonment and 20 years with remissions. The State Level Committee accordingly vide Annexure R-3 rejected the case of the petitioner. This action of the respondent has been impugned in this petition.

(2.) IN the reply filed by the respondent, the reasons that persuaded the State Level Committee to take the aforesaid decision have been reiterated.

(3.) A reading of the aforesaid paragraph would indicate that the State Government has itself made a distinction between the crimes which are repugnant to the conscience and to the others. It will be seen that paragraph 2(a) pertains to such murders where the motive for the murder is a base one or the actual perpetration of the crime is in a cruel manner whereas the other categories of murder fall within paragraph 2(b) of the Instructions. It will be seen from Annexure R-2, which is a decision of the State Level Committee that the petitioner along with 11 co-accused committed the murder of the two persons in an open fight and in a pre-planned manner when the deceased were working in the field. The State Level Committee has not given any finding that the manner of the motive behind the crime was particularly reprehensible. Moreover, the High Court in the case of this two co-accused, referred to above, has already recorded that the crime committed by the petitioner and the co-accused fell within paragraph 2(b). The action of the respondent therefore, in declining to release the petitioner prematurely cannot be sustained.