JARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was arrested on 18.2.1982, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for offences under Sections 302/376/328/404, Indian Penal Code, on 19.4.1983 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. It is the case of petitioner that ever since his arrest, he has been continuously in jail and has thereby undergone the total sentence of 16 years and 13 days including remissions. It has been asserted that the total actual sentence undergone by the petitioner was 11 years 10 months and 6 days on the date of the filing of the petition. It has been averred that the petitioner was only 17 years of age at the time of commission of the offence and, as such, he was entitled to the benefit of the instructions Annexure P-2 dated 19th November, 1991, in which it had been stated that juvenile life convicts, below the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence, were entitled to have their cases considered for the purpose of premature release after completion of actual sentence of eight years including the undertrial period provided that the total period of such sentence, including remissions, was not less than ten years. The petitioner feeling that he was covered by the aforesaid instructions and entitled to release filed Crl. W.P. No. 2030 of 1990 in this Court and the same was disposed of vide Annexure P-3 dated 9th March, 1992 with the direction that as the case of the petitioner was prima facie covered by the aforesaid paragraph, the matter might be considered expeditiously. The State Government, however, on reconsideration once again rejected the petitioner's application. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by this decision of the government once again approached this Court by way of Crl. Misc. No. 7488-M of 1992 in which a direction was issued that the case of the petitioner be reconsidered in the light of the judgment in Charan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 439. The case of the petitioner now is that despite this direction, the respondents have rejected his case vide Annexure R-II on the ground that as he had committed a henious crime of murder with rape, he was not entitled to be prematurely released in view of the latest instructions of the government dated 4th February, 1993 annexed as Annexure R-1 with the reply.

(2.) THE only argument of Mr. Chaudhry is that in view of the judgments of this Court in the earlier two matters filed by the petitioner, his case for premature release was liable to be considered in the background of the instructions Annexure P-2 dated 19.11.1991 and, as on that day he did fulfil the condition laid down in these instructions, he was entitled to be released on that basis and the subsequent instructions Annexure R-1 could not take away a right that had already accrued to him. For this assertion, he has relied on Balkar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 328. The learned State counsel has however urged that since the petitioner had committed a henious crime, he was not entitled to be prematurely released in view of para 2(a) of the instructions dated 4.2.1993 (Annexure R-1).