SATYA PARKASH Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of order dated 8.7.2019, whereby Himachal Pradesh State Sentence Review Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Review Board') has declined to recommend his premature release.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the petitioner was convicted by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., under Sections 302, 307 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 20.9.1999. Pursuant to aforesaid judgment, petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment at Model Central Jail, Kanda, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. In the year, 2015, petitioner-convict after having spent more than 16 years in jail approached the respondent-State for remission of sentence, but till date, aforesaid prayer of him has been not acceded to. Now, when the petitioner has already spent more than 20 years in jail, Review Board without there being any cogent and convincing reason has refused to recommend the premature release of the petitioner vide order dated 8.7.2019 and as such, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:-

(3.) Perusal of order dated 8th July, 2019 passed by the Review Board, wherein case of the petitioner has been specifically dealt with at Sr. No.15, reveals that though all the District authorities concerned recommended premature release of petitioner, but since learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Mandi did not give specific opinion qua premature release in favour of the petitioner and merely stated in his report that "if the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh and its Board, think it appropriate to release the prisoner Premature i.e without undergoing the life imprisonment, Board may release the convict premature sentence," Review Board rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that he has committed serious crime of murder and in the event of his being released, he may again indulge in such crime and as such, his prayer for remission of sentence cannot be accepted.