DIDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose Crl. M. No. 16883-M of 1995 and Crl. M. No. 6375-M of 1996.

(2.) DIDAR Singh son of Kandhara Singh, a life convict confined in Central Jail, Ambala, has prayed for his pre-mature release by filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was tried in the court of Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in a case registered at FIR No. 206, dated 15.7.1984, under Section 302 IPC and under section 27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Kaithal. The petitioner was accused of committing murder of Angrez Singh and Savinder Singh. The learned Sessions Judge after the trial of the petitioner found him guilty of the offence of murder on two counts under Section 302 IPC and also of the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was awarded life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC on two counts and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 27 of Arms Act. The substantive sentences passed under the two offences were ordered to run concurrently. The judgment convicting the petitioner and sentencing him as aforesaid was delivered on 26.4.1995, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P1. The petitioner was arrested on 15.7.1984 and since then he has been confined in Jail and has undergone 11 years and two months of actual sentence on the date of moving of the present petition i.e. on 4.10.1990. The petitioner also earned remission of about six years and is not guilty of any jail offence and he has been quite obedient and disciplined in the jail. The petitioner seeks benefit under instructions dated 19.11.1991 issued by the State of Haryana for consideration of pre-mature release case of life convicts. Subsequently, the State Government issued instructions dated 4.2.1993 (copy annexure P2). It was mentioned in the petition that substantially the two instructions, referred to above, were same in so far as adult male life convicts are concerned. The petitioner, however, prays that his case for pre-mature release be considered in the light of latest instructions dated 4.2.1993. According to the petitioner his case is covered under para 2(b) of the instructions dated 4.2.1993 because he is not covered by the categories mentioned in para 2(a) of the said instructions. The Jail authorities, it was averred in the petition, forwarded his case in or about February, 1995 to the said authorities for appropriate order regarding the pre-mature release of the petitioner. The petitioner was, however, not released by the respondent and he filed a criminal misc. petition No. 8199-M of 1995 which came up for hearing before this Court on 31.7.1995 and was disposed of by the following order:

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG for the State of Haryana-respondent.