JODHRAJ GURJAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order dt. 07.12.2006, the petitioner, Jodhraj Gurjar, had brought to the notice of this Court that his case for parole has been dismissed by the Advisory Committee. The said letter has been treated as a letter petition and has been placed before this Court. According to the petitioner, he was convicted for offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to life imprisonment. So far he has completed seven years of imprisonment, since he was eligible for first regular parole under R.9 of Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as the Rules of 1958 , for short), he applied for the same. However, vide order dt. 15.11.2006, the Advisory Committee constituted under the Rules of 1958 had dismissed his case.

(2.) ACCORDING to the reply submitted by the State, the petitioner has completed seven years, eleven months and three days imprisonment so far. Furthermore, while considering the case of the petitioner for parole, it was pointed out before the Advisory Committee that the Superintendent of Police and the Social Welfare Officer have not recommended the case for his release on parole. Therefore, the Advisory Committee had rejected his case.

(3.) EVERY one is born free. Freedom resides in the soul of each person. To be cribbed, cabined and confined within the strong walls of a prison, leads to a feeling of suffocation and restlessness. The era of dumping people in jail and forgetting about their existence is over. The new penal philosophy is not to incarcerate, but to reform the convicted prisoners. The aim of the prisoner administration is not just to punish, but to improve the convicted prisoner to the extent that he/she may be brought back into the society as a contributory member. It is with this aim that the Rules of 1958 were framed. R.13 of the Rules of 1958 clearly states that grant of parole shall be used as an occasion to inculcate good behaviour among the convicted prisoner. In catena of cases, the Hon ble Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out that the purpose of parole is to instill good behaviour, to keep the family link alive and to ensure that the convicted prisoner is brought peacefully back into the society at large. Repeatedly this Court has also held that in order to know the change in the convicted prisoner, it is the report of the Superintendent of the Jail, which is most important. For, it is he who can inform the Advisory Committee about the change brought about in the prisoner. Therefore, an adverse police report is insignificant. Thus, the Advisory Committee was not justified in rejecting the petitioner s case on the basis of adverse police report and the report of the Social Welfare Officer.