RATTAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RATTAN Lal, Ram Sarup and Ram Singh petitioners along with father Ami Lal and their grand - father Ram Chander were put up at trial in case FIR No. 122, dated 2.10.1985, under sections 148/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code of Police Station Bawal before Sessions Judge, Narnaul. They were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by Sessions Judge, Narnaul on 9.7.1986. Eversince then, Rattan Lal, Ram Sarup and Ram Singh petitioners have been in jail. Prior to 9.7.1986 also they were in jail as undertrial. During this period, Rattan Lal petitioner No. 1 has suffered detention of 10 years 7 months and 26 days and he has earned remissions of 5 years 10 months and 10 days. He has suffered detention to the tune of 16 years 6 months and 6 days. Ram Sarup petitioner No. 2 has suffered detention of 10 years 7 months and 26 days. He has earned remissions of 5 years 1 month and 17 days. He has thus in all suffered detention to the tune of 15 years 9 months and 13 days. Similarly, Ram Singh petitioner No. 3 has suffered detention to the tune of 10 years 7 months and 26 days and has earned remissions to the tune of 5 years 8 months and 7 days. He has thus suffered detention to the tune of 16 years 4 months and 3 days. Their behaviour has been highly disciplined during their confinement in jail all through this period. They have not committed any jail offence. They have not suffered any jail punishment. They have enjoyed paroles and furloughs on various occasions. During the period they were on parole or furlough, there was no untoward incident and they surrendered in jail without any demur after the period of parole or furlough was over. They are entitled to premature release in view of instructions (Annexure P.1) issued by the Haryana Government in the exercise of powers vesting under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Their case for premature release is governed by para 2, clause (b) of these instructions as the learned Sessions Judge has nowhere found that murder committed was foul or commission of the murder was attended by brutality or cruel and aggravating circumstances. They have not been labelled as having committed any heinous crime as defined in para 2 -A of the aforesaid instructions. It was on account of the fact that their case for premature release is governed by para 2(b) of instructions Annexure P.1, that jail authorities recommended their case for premature release to the Government vide letter No. 1811 dated 14.9.1995. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge by this Court would also reveal that they have not committed any henious crime and the crime alleged to have been committed by them does not fall in any of the categories as given in para 2(a) of the said instructions. In a case which has parallel to this case so far as facts go titled as Devi Singh v. State of Haryana, Crl. Misc No. 3473 -M of 1992, premature release was ordered after he had undergone 10 years actual sentence and 14 years sentence with remissions. In appeal against that order Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have issued directions to the respondents authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for premature release within stipulated period. Annexure P.2 is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this behalf. Through this criminal miscellaneous filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Rattan Lal Ram Sarup and Ram Singh petitioner have sought directions to the respondents for consideration of their case for premature release in view of Instructions (Annexure P -1), para 2(b) issued by the Government laying down policy regarding the premature release of life convicts.

(2.) THE respondents have not put any in any reply quelling the averments made by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case as set up at the trial there was litigation between Ram Chand accused and Jagdish deceased respecting a piece of land situated in village Gujjar Majri which according to Jagdish had been encroached upon by Ram Chander etc for the construction of his house. Civil suit filed by Jagdish was decided in favour of the accused party by the Sub Judge. In appeal, however, the same was decided in favour of Jagdish. Second appeal filed by Ram Chander etc. was also dismissed. On 2.10.1995 Jagdish and Ram Partap were coming back to their houses after easing themselves. When they reached the embankment of the field of Bhagwat, Ram Chander etc., emerged out of the bajra fields of Bhagwat. Ram Chander etc. were variously armed. Ram Chander raised lalkara exhorting his co -accused that enemy has come and he should not be spared and be taught a lesson for winning the case. Thereupon, Ram Chander etc. conjointly opened assault and inflicted two banki blows Jagdish fell down. Other accused also inflicted blows with their respective weapons on Jagdish. Ram Partap raised an alarm 'killed, killed'. Kishori Lal and Ram Jiwan came there. The accused ran towards bajra fields. Jagdish injured was carried to the hospital in a bullock cart where he was found dead.