JOSHI MADHAVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

(2.) Sri V. Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was convicted on 4/8/2000 in S.C.No.315 of 1997 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 302, 120-B, 449, 307 and 307 read with 149 IPC and Sec. 27(2) of the Arms Act and 147, 149, 506 and 397 IPC and 24(1-A) of Arms Act, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life each for the offences under Sec. 302 IPC on two counts and under Ss. 120-B, 449, 307 and 307 read with 149 IPC and Sec. 27(2) of the Arms Act and further sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec. 147 IPC, Rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec. 148 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Sec. 506 IPC, Rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Sec. 397 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Sec. 25(1-A) of the Arms Act. He submits that the Appeal preferred by the petitioner's husband i.e., Criminal Appeal No.1672 of 2000 was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 31/3/2003. The petitioner's husband-convict prisoner also preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, vide Crl.A.No.174 of 2004 and that was also dismissed on 23/7/2009 and he is languishing in jail from 1/12/1995. He further submits that the convict prisoner was on parole multiple times and he never jumped parole and returned to the jail in time. The convict prisoner has completed B.A., M.A. (Sociology), M.A. (Political Science) from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University, Computer Fundamental and MS Office from National Council for Vocational Training and currently studying M.A. (Psychology) from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University and he is a volunteer in a Prisoner Reformation Program named 'Unnathi' a Cognitive Behavioural Skill Development Program run by retired Professor Beena, Osmania University. The convict prisoner was also recommended by the jail authorities of Cherlapally to be a trainer for Mahabubnagar District prisoners. The convict prisoner has to undergo dilation every four months for entire life and he is also suffering from sciatica, back ache and severe migraine. Learned counsel submits that the Director General of Police of United Andhra Pradesh, vide letters dtd. 31/5/2010 and 29/9/2010 addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, recommending the release of the convict prisoner stating the convict prisoner is a changed man and is in a state of repentance of his past and there may not be any danger to the society or breach of peace if he is released. The State Human Rights Commission has also directed the authorities concerned on 24/1/2011 to consider the mercy petition of the convict prisoner immediately. He further submits that the petitioner's husband had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20004 of 2011, wherein this Court held that after considering the above reports from the concerned officials, that the convict is at liberty to make an application before the Government for grant of remission of punishment to commute the sentence so as to enable the Government to consider his case under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Commissioner of Police, Collector of Ranga Reddy District and Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Cherlaplly, addressed letters and recommended the Director General of Prisons and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, for grant of pardon and the convict prisoner may be released on mercy grounds. Learned counsel submits that Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District vide letter dtd. 20/4/2012 had recommended to the Director General of Prisons and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh for grant of pardon to the petitioner's husband. He submits that the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Legal Department, had written to the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide letter dtd. 16/4/2016 requesting to consider for according necessary permission for granting remission of life sentence to the convicted prisoner. He submits that the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Legal Department, Andhra Pradesh vide proceedings dtd. 1/12/2017 had given no objection to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Legal Department, Telangana for granting remission and releasing the petitioner's husband from jail and the same was communicated to the Central Government, Ministry of Home Affairs. It has been specifically brought to the notice of the authorities that husband of the petitioner is completely changed man with good behaviour and completed almost 27 years of imprisonment including remission period. Learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent i.e. Union of India and CBI has not responded to the letters written by the Government of Telangana since last three years. He submits that one of the prisoners named Khadir was released much earlier to the petitioner. Even the wife of the deceased has given consent to the convict through paper statement that she has no objection if the petitioner is prematurely released. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has completed more than actual years of incarceration and with remission around 28 years in jail. He submits that the respondents are not taking any action and the petitioner is suffering with several health issues.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the CBI. Learned Standing Counsel submits that infrastructure and manpower of CBI is very limited and the case matter in petition does not involve any complicated issues of law or interstate ramifications. Hence, they have stated that they will abide by the orders passed by this Court.