DASU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by Dasu son of Raunak Ram seeking his premature release on the ground that he has already undergone the requisite period of sentence as provided in paragraph 2(b) of the government instructions dated 19th November, 1992 and of February, 1993. The case of the petitioner was considered by State Level Committee on a number of occasions for the purpose pre -mature release but the benefit had been denied on the ground etas the crime committed by him was a heinous one, his case was covered under para 2(a) of the aforesaid instructions and as such, he required to undergo 14 years' actual sentence and 20 years with remissions. The respondents have alongwith their reply filed in response to the petition, given the reasons that weighed with the State Level Committee in arriving at its conclusion.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have one through the record.

(3.) IT will be seen from a reading of the instructions referred to above that the government has made a distinction between different kinds of murder and those which fall within para 2(a) are those that are motivated by truly obnoxious considerations or the manner of the execution of murder is particularly cruel. From the nature of the crime committed by the petitioner and his co -accused, it is clear to me that his case was covered within para 2(b) of the aforesaid instructions. It is evident that the accused and the complainant parties were very closely related and as a matter of fact, Ronak Ram accused was the brother of Mangat Ram deceased and Bhuria deceased was the son of Mangat Ram. The petitioner is the son of Ronak Ram. The reason for the commission of the murder was that Ronak Ram and Mangat Ram both wished to perform the last rites of their mother Mani who had died a natural death on 12.9.1981 in the house of Ronak Ram and when Mangat Ram and his son Bhuria aforesaid tried to take the dead body from the house of Ronak Ram, the incident in question took place. It will, therefore, be seen that there was no real motive for the commission of the crime and the manner in which it was executed was also not particularly cruel. It is to be noted that merely because two persons fight and in the course of the fight, one person dies, that would not bring the case under paragraph 2(a) of the aforesaid instructions. It is true that in every case of murder, an element of brutality is involved and every murder is to that extent a heinous crime, but once the Government itself has framed a policy drawing a distinction between heinous murders and others, these instructions have to be followed in letter and spirit.