DODHU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment. He had undergone a little more than 11 years of actual sentence and more than 17 years inclusive of remission. There is no dispute that all along his incarceration the petitioner's conduct has been good. The petitioner's case for pre-mature release under Article 161 of the Constitution, section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual was submitted by the jail authorities to the State Government. It was rejected on 8.11.1988 with the observation that the petitioner having been found guilty of a heinous crime his case was not fit for pre-mature release and the same be put after one year. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of rejection through this petition.

(2.) THE broad facts mentioned above have not been disputed in the written statement filed by Shri S.N. Trikha, Superintendent District Jail, Sirsa, on behalf of the respondents. The relevant extract of the decision rejecting the prayer of pre-mature release is reproduced in Annexure R. 3(ii) filed with the return. It is to the effect that the government was of the opinion that no case was made out for petitioner's pre-mature release in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the manner in ;which the crime of heinous nature was committed. It was directed that the case be put up again for reconsideration after one year.

(3.) IN this case the convict at the time of trial gave his age as 18 years. The learned trial Court, however, noted that by appearance the petitioner appeared to be about 25 years old. The question of age of the petitioner at the time of commission of the offence need not be pursued because he had undergone the requisite sentence both actual and total including remission for the category of adult life convicts falling in clause (c) of the instruction. This fact is clear from two reasons : (i) that admittedly the petitioners case for pre-mature release was submitted by the Supertendent District Jail Sirsa, to the State Government and this would be possible only if the petitioner had fulfilled the condition of eligibility by having undergone the requisite sentence, and (ii) the return does not disclose any facts which would bring the case of the petitioner in aggravated form of crimes referred to in clause (d) of the instructions mentioned earlier. The Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision or this Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, dated July 12, IL989 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1657 of 1989. It was observed, in the said judgment that heinousness of the crime is a factor to be considered at the time of awarding the sentence and once a person was awarded life imprisonment heinousness of the crime ceased to be a live factor. It may be added that as pointed out above the facts of the present case do not attract the provisions of clause (d) of the instructions in which several aggravated forms of murder etc are mentioned. The impugned order stands vitiated because it is based on a consideration which is not relevant in deciding the case for pre-mature release. Even otherwise the period of one year has since expired and the case is even otherwise to be reconsidered by the appropriate authorities.