MOTI Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOTI was tried for an offence under Sections 302, 325, 324, 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. along with 11 other persons by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 15.1.1993. At present he is undergoing imprisonment in District Jail, Sirsa. He has already served actual sentence of 12 years 5 months and 1 day and total sentence including remissions for 16 years 10 months 1 day. During his detention in jail he never committed any jail offence and maintained good conduct. Under the instructions issued by the Government he became eligible for consideration of his case for pre-mature release which was duly initiated by the Superintendent District Jail, Sirsa, but was rejected by the Government on the ground that he had committed a heinous crime along with 11 other persons by murdering Babu Singh and Bhola Singh and causing injuries to five others. It was, thus, ordered that his case for pre-mature release will be reconsidered after he had undergone actual sentence for 14 years and earned remissions for six years at least. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the respondents to consider his pre-mature release case.

(2.) THE petitioner alleged that he had not committed any heinous crime and his case was covered under para 2(b) of the Government Instructions dated 19.11.1991 and not under para 2(a) of those instructions. His co-accused Billu and Desi were already ordered to be released pre-maturally by this Court. Once he was convicted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. the heinousness of the crime remained no longer relevant for determining his mercy petition and his case was to be considered in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government. In the petitions filed by Billu and Desi his co- accused it was already held that they had not committed a heinous crime then he could not be discriminated.

(3.) THIS fact is admitted that the case of the petitioner for grant of pre- mature release was to be considered in the light of the instructions dated 19.11.1991 and according to para 2(b) of these instructions the petitioner was eligible for the consideration of his case for pre-mature release after completion of 19 years' actual sentence including undertrial period and undergoing 14 years of imprisonment including remissions. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was held guilty for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and this case was not covered by para 2(a) of the instructions which defined a heinous crime as under :-