OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been registered on a letter of convict Om Prakash Resident of village Kherampura Police Station Adampur District-Hissar (Haryana ). He was arrested in September, 1995. He was tried on the charge for offence under Sec. 302 I. P. C. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalore by judgment dated 29. 1. 1999 convicted him for offence under Sec. 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He is presently lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner. He has undergone a sentence of about six years. He submitted an application before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner for consideration of his case by Advisory Committee for release on parole. The District Magistrate obtained the police report from Superintendent of Police and Sub- Divisional Officer, Hissar. The Superintendent of Police has sent an adverse report stating that if he is released, tension may crop up in the village. The Sub-Divisional Officer has verified that the house of the applicant is required to be repaired. He has also verified that there is no other member in the family of the applicant to take care of their house. However, the District Magistrate has expressed that the power of release on parole is with the Director General of Prison under the Haryana Release on Parole Rules. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner has furnished the necessary information in prescribed proforma.

(2.) THE application is opposed by Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the jail department on the ground that in view of Rule 14 sub-rule (a) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `parole Rules') he cannot be released on parole. Elaborating the argument, it is submitted that a resident of outside the State of Rajasthan confined in jail in State of Rajasthan, falls in the category of Class of Prisoners who are ineligible for release on parole. Mr. Rathore in all fairness has brought in our notice an unreported judgment dated 27. 7. 2000 rendered in D. B. Criminal Petition No. 1818/2000 wherein this court has interpreted the word "ordinarily" employed in Rule 14 sub-rule (a) and held that there is no total prohibition to release a prisoner on parole whose ordinary place of resident is outside the State of Rajasthan.

(3.) A human being continues to have his dignity, self respect and human rights even while under custody, in any form of detention or imprisonment. The Apex Court in the case of Francis Coralie (2) held that "right to live is not restricted to mere animal existence. It means something more than just physical survival. " The prisoners are also human being. In Sunil Batra's case (3) the Apex Court discussed in depth and detail the scope of "prisoner's right" and their constitutional roots. In Mohd. Giasuddin vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (4), the Apex Court interpreted the Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India with respect to the prisoners' right. The Court observed thus:- " We strongly feel that humanitarian winds blow into this decade when jail reforms from abolition of convicts, customs and conscript labour to restoration of basic companionship and atmosphere of self respect and paternal touch are on the urgent agenda of the nation. Our prisons should be correctional houses, not cruel iron aching the soul. " In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhakar Pandurang (5), the Apex Court person detained under Preventive Detention Act was not permitted to hand over his "written work" to his wife for publication. The Court held it is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The human rights have been recognised even after the death of prisoner. In the case of Pandit Parmanand vs. Union of India (6), the court observed that when a person is executed with death penalty and Doctor gave a certificate of death and dead body not lowered even after half an hour after the certificate of death was issued was found to be a case of violation of Human Rights. In Sanjay Suri vs. Delhi Administration (7), the Apex Court held that the prison authority should change their attitude towards prisoners and protect their human rights for the sake of humanity.