LILAWATI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Lilawati, petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order of rejection of premature release case Annexure P. 7 and she has sought further declaration that she has been deprived of her liberty without following the procedure established by law. Brief facts are required to be quoted for the disposal of the present petition. The petitioner was convicted under section 302 IPC on 18.8.1987. She was taken into custody during the course of investigation of the case and she is behind the bars for the last more than 9 years and this aspect of the case has not been disputed by the respondents. The case of the petitioner for her premature release has been rejected mainly on the grounds as stated in Annexure P.7 quoted below:

(2.) IN other words the stand of the State is that the petitioner was guilty of a case of bride burning therefore, she is not entitled to be considered for premature release.

(3.) THE petitioner fulfils this qualification as enumerated in para No. 6 of Annexure P.-2. These guidelines do not make any distinction with regard to a bride burning case or an ordinary murder. In these circumstances, the stand taken up by the State in Annexure P.-7 cannot sustain in the eyes of law. After the instructions of 1985, the State has further revised the instructions by issuing Annexure P.-3 dated 8.7.1991 and for the first time the State wanted to say that the murders which have been committed in connection with dowry will be enacted as heinous and for such convicts the minimum sentence required to be undergone by a female detenu is 8 years actual and 12 years including remissions. Even the petitioner fulfils this guideline as contained in Annexure P.-3. The settled law of the land is that the guidelines which are applicable on the date of the conviction are supposed to be taken note of while considering the case of a premature release of a detenu. If the case of the petitioner is viewed from both the angles, she has fulfilled the requisite qualifications as contained in Annexures P.-2 and P.3. In this view of the matter, the order of rejection Annexure P.-7 cannot sustain in the eyes of law and is hereby struck down keeping in view the famous case of Maru Ram reported as AIR 1980 Supreme Court 2147, Maru Ram etc v. State of Punjab and relevant are the sub-paras 8, 9 and 10 of para No. 72 which are as follows :-