ASSA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was sentenced on 13.10.1983 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence under Section 302/307 IPC read with Section 148/149 IPC. He had undergone actual sentence of more than 10 years and a sentence of more than 15 years including remissions. In view of the instructions issued by the State Government for premature release of the prisoners he became eligible and his case was initiated. The same was, however, rejected by the State Government on 21.1.1993 on the ground that he had committed a heinous crime. The petitioner alleged that as per revised policy of the Government which came into effect from 19.11.1991, his case was to be considered for his premature release after he completed actual sentence for 10 years and gravity and heinousness of offence was no ground to decline the benefit of those instructions when two of his brothers who were his co-accused had been released by the State and the crime committed by them was not considered to be heinous. The State Government was not following any uniform standard and in his case the order passed was arbitrary. He thus, filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ directing the State Government to release him forthwith.

(2.) IN the written statement it was alleged that the petitioner along with four other persons who were his brothers and father committed the murder of Mahavir and a murderous assault on Des Raj and the crime committed by him was heinous, so the State Level Committee, recommended that the premature release case of the petitioner be reconsidered when completed 14 years actual sentence including under-trial period and earned at least six years remissions. This fact was admitted that the petitioner had undergone 10 years, 11 months, 24 days, actual sentence and 16 years, 5 months, 10 days sentence including remissions. Alongwith the written statement copy of the order dated 19.1.1993 vide which the petitioner's case for premature release was rejected was filed which was a Annexure R/1.

(3.) A perusal of the order Annexure R/1 shows that the only ground for postponing the case of the petitioner for reconsideration on his completion of actual sentence of 14 years was that he had committed a heinous and brutal murder during day time along with his father and brothers. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not committed a heinous of the crime as described in para 2(a) of the instructions Annexure P/3 and his case was covered by para 2(b) of the said instructions. He had not committed any offence as mentioned in para 2 of the instructions and that is why his brothers who were his co-accused have already been released. This fact is not denied by the respondent that the brothers of the petitioner against whom similar allegations were made and who were also undergoing imprisonment for life have been allowed premature release. According to the instructions Annexure P/3 the case of premature release of a convict described in para 2(a) of the instructions was to be considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including under trial period and after earning at least 6 years remissions, if he committed a heinous crime, such as murder with wrongful confinement, murder for extortion/robbery, murder with rape, murder while undergoing life sentence, murder with dacoity, murder in connection with dowry, bride burning, murder of a child under the age of 14 years, murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces or burning/dragging the body as evident from the judgment of sentence and persistent bad conduct in the prison. Admittedly, the petitioner did not commit any such offence as described in para 2(a) of the above instructions. He committed the murder of a person along with four others and two of his co-accused have already been released. His case, thus, does not fall under para 2(a) of the Instructions Annexure P/3. He committed a murder and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Para 2(b) relates to the case of adult life convicts who have been imprisoned for life but whose cases are not covered under para 2(a) above i.e. who committed crime which was not considered heinous as mentioned in para 2(a). The case of the petitioner, was, thus, to be considered after completion of 10 years of actual sentence including under-trial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 14 years. It is admitted in the written statement filed by the respondent that upto 18.8.1993 the petitioner had undergone substantive sentence of 11 years, 5 months, 10 days including remissions. He is, therefore, eligible for consideration of his case for premature release and the same cannot be denied to him on the ground that he committed a heinous crime.