DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner, a life convict, presently undergoing imprisonment in Central Jail, Hisar, praying for a direction to the respondents to release him on the basis of the instructions dated November 19, 1991. According to the petitioner, as on November 19, 1991 when the State of Haryana issued new Instructions, the petitioner had undergone 9 years and 3 months actual sentence and including remissions more than 14 years of sentence. Further, according to him, he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he had not committed heinous crime as defined in para 2(a) of the Instructions.

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the respondents, but in their reply, they have stated that the case of the petitioner was put up before the Committee constituted by the Government for consideration of pre-mature release cases of the life convicts, in the meeting held on January 22, 1994. The case of the petitioner was rejected on the grounds that the petitioner had committed a heinous crime as he had killed his brother Hardial Singh with Gandasa/Khapra and during his confinement in jail, he had committed two jail offences, i.e. on November 4, 1989 and October 1, 1992 for which he was duly punished by the Superintendent Jail and thus because of his persistent bad conduct in prison, his case can be considered only after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including remissions as provided under para 2(a) of 1991 Instructions.

(3.) A reading of the judgment Annexure P.3 whereby the petitioner was convicted, shows that the motive for the petitioner to liquidate his brother was not strong. This has been so noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in his judgment. In regard to his persistent bad conduct, the order of jail punishment has been quashed by this Court in CrI. Misc. No. 2809-M of 1993. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner does not fall in para 2(a) of the Instructions as he has not committed any heinous crime as defined in the said para. The case of the petitioner clearly falls in para 2(b) which provides that where adult life convicts who have been imprisoned for life but whose cases are not covered under para 2(a) and have committed crime which have not considered heinous as mentioned in para 2(a), their cases may be considered after completion of ten years of actual sentence including under trial period. It has come on the record in the reply of the respondents that the petitioner has actually undergone 10 years 8 months and 20 days actual sentence as on October 27, 1993 and a total period undergone by him is 15 years 4 months and 17 days including remissions earned. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release in terms of Para No. 2(b) of 1991. Instructions within two months from the receipt of this order. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.