MITHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to the filing of the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ for habeas corpus for releasing the petitioner prematurely he in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was tried for the offence of murdering as many as four persons for which he was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on August 20, 1977. He has actually spent in detention a period of eleven years nine months and nineteen days whereas remissions were granted by the State Government as well as by the Jail Authorities to the tune of 7 years and 8 months. Therefore, in all he has undergone more than 14 years sentence including the remissions out or which admittedly, more than 8 years 6 months is the actual sentence which he has undergone. There is no dispute as regards this factual position is concerned.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition for his premature release on the ground that his case for premature release has wrongly been declined three times and that the ground that the release of the petitioner is likely to prove hazardous to peace and tranquillity in the locality is no legal ground to detain him in prison any longer. Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that simply because the petitioner is guilty of commission of as many as four murders, the same is no ground to decline the premature release of a convict when he has undergone the necessary sentence which entitles him to be released within the meaning and ambit of provisions of paras 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual. There is no denying the fact that since the petitioner was convicted and sentenced. before December 18, 1978, that is, before the amendment and insertion of Section 433-A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner's case has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manuaul which is to be interpreted in this judgment, is reproduced below 516-B. Action to be taken on expiry of 14 years.

(3.) AFTER considering the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, who have ably argued the case, I am of the opinion that the gravity or heinousness of offence is no ground to decline the benefit of the provisions of paragraph 516 B of the Punjab Jail Manual. In my view, the gravity of the offence is a factor for awarding the sentence. An accused in view of seriousness of the offence can be ordered to be hanged but once a Court of law after taking the facts and circumstances into consideration in its wisdom has thought it appropriate to award life imprisonment, that accused becomes an ordinary life convict and the law does not make any distinction between that life convict, who has committed more than one murder and another life convict who has committed only one murder. To put any other interpretation to the provisions of paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual, it would amount to doing violation to the provisions of the paragraph. Had the concerned authorities thought it appropriate, they could while enacting the provisions of paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual, have made a provision to the contrary or different guidelines could be laid down for dealing with the cases of those accused who have committed one murder and about the accused persons who have committed more than one murder. After an accused has started undergoing the sentence imposed upon him, his conduct in jail has to be seen. The petitioner in the instant case was released several times on parole and furlough and he maintained peace and no untoward incident happened. The circumstances and the motive for the offence or even bitter feelings of the complainant-party whose relations have lost their lives would not diminish even after the expiry of full period of 20 years of sentence. To the similar effect are the observations made by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Harbhajan Singh v. Lt. Govern of Delhi, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 125. Their Lordships of Delhi High Court, of course, were not dealing with a case where more than one murder was committed, yet it would not make any difference in law. While dealing with the similar situation, a Division Bench of Madhya Pardesh High Court in Nainaram and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 1987 Cri.LJ 1981 observed that the heinousness of crime was no legal ground for declining the premature release of a life convict. In that case the accused were sentenced for committing triple murder and their petition was allowed. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in another case in Rakesh Kaushik and others v. Delhi Administration and another, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 171 again observed that the objection of the State that there was a party-faction and the premature release of a life convict may cause mishap was not a valid ground for declining a petition for premature release.