Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 165 (PNJ)

Gopal Bahadur v. State of Haryana

2001-01-31

AMAR DUTT

body2001
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - Gopal Bahadur petitioner was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in a State case bearing FIR No. 222 dated 21.6.1989 registered at Police Station City Palwal and vide his judgment of conviction dated 20.11.1990 and the order of sentence date 22.11.1990, respectively, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- or in default to further undergo R.I. for 6 months. The conviction of the petitioner was upheld by the High Court and the SLP filed by him was also dismissed. 2. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court to issue directions to quash the order dated 8.10.1999, copy Annexure P.4, passed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Jails Department and to direct the respondents to consider and decide the premature release case of the petitioner under para No. 2(c) of the latest instructions date 4.2.1998/16.3.1999 and to release him prematurely. 3. According to the petitioner, he has already undergone the following sentence : Years Months Days (i) Actual sentence undergone including under trial period from 11.11.1989 till 8.2.2000 10 02 28 (ii) Remissions earned upto date 04 03 02 Total sentence undergone 14 06 00 4. According to the petitioner since he was only 17 years old at the time of his conviction and sentence and as such he was much below 16 years on the date of the commission of the offence. Therefore, he was a Juvenile Offender and his case had to be considered as per the instructions issued by the State of Haryana on 16.3.1999, according to which a life convict who was below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence is required to undergo only 8 years of actual sentence and a total of 10 years including remission to qualify for consideration and decision of his case for premature release. Since it was not being done, he has prayed that he be given the benefit of the aforesaid instructions and directions should be issued to the respondents for initiating the case for his premature release. 5. Since it was not being done, he has prayed that he be given the benefit of the aforesaid instructions and directions should be issued to the respondents for initiating the case for his premature release. 5. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, preliminary objection was taken to the effect that if a person is convicted of heinous crime his case for premature release would be considered only after completion of 14 years of actual sentence and 6 years of remissions. In view this, it was submitted that the case of the petitioner had been rejected on 8.10.1999 after due consideration. The period of sentence undergone by the petitioner according to the jail records was as under : Years Months Days (i) Under trial period from 16.11.1989 till 20.11.1990 01 00 05 (ii) Conviction period from 22.10.1990 to 7.3.2000 09 03 15 Actual sentence undergone 10 03 20 (iii) Remissions earned 04 05 19 Total sentence undergone till 7.3.2000 14 09 09 6. It was submitted that as the case of the petitioner would fall under para 2(a) of the Government Instructions, he was not entitled for being considered for premature release. 7. During the pendency of the petition, the State brought on record the circular issued by the State on 8.8.2000 and asserted that even according to the Circular the case of the petitioner for premature release could not be taken up. 8. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised before me during, the course of argument, I feel that even if the argument of the counsel for the petitioner was to be accepted in toto, the petitioner would not be entitled to any directions requiring the respondents to initiate his papers for premature release. Para 2(c) of the instructions reads as follows : (a) Juvenile life convicts below the age of 18 years at the time of commission of offence and whose cases are not covered under (a) above and who have committed crimes which are not considered heinous as mentioned in clause (a) and female life convicts. Their cases may be considered after completion of 8 years actual sentence including under trial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remission is not less than 10 years. 9. Their cases may be considered after completion of 8 years actual sentence including under trial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remission is not less than 10 years. 9. A perusal of this para makes it clear that Juvenile life convict below the age of 18 years, whose case is not covered by para 2(a) is entitled to be considered for premature release on completion of 8 years actual sentence including under trial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not loss than 10 years. 10. Para 2(a) deals with the convicts who are imprisoned for life for the following categories of offences :- (i) Murder with wrongful confinement for extortion/robbery. (ii) Murder with rape. (iii) Murder while undergoing life sentence. (iv) Murder with dacoity. (v) Murder with offence under TADA Act, 1987. (vi) Murder with Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (vii) Murder in connection with dowry. (viii) Murder of a child under the age of 14 years. (ix) Murder of a woman. (x) Murder after abduction or kidnapping. (xi) Murder on professional hired basis. (xii) Murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces or burning/dragging the body as evident from judgment of the Court. (xiii) Persistent bad conduct in the prison. (xiv) Convicts who have been imprisoned for life under section 120-B Indian Penal Code. (xv) Convicts who cannot for some definite reasons be prematurely released without danger to public safety. (xvi) Convicts who have been awarded life imprisonment a second time under any offence. (xvii) Any other crime that the State Legal Committee considers to be heinous for reasons to be recorded in writing." 11. The petitioner in the present case was convicted for having killed one Parveen Kumar and had been punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Though, there is a mention in the judgment of some cash being missing from the counter, yet no charge was framed against the petitioner for having committed murder while committing dacoity. The State Government rejected the recommendation for premature release after taking into consideration this circumstance which it was entitled to do under Clause (xvii) of Para 2(a) and therefore, the submission that Para 2(c) would cover the case of the petitioner cannot be accepted. His case will have to be initiated only on his serving the sentence as provided in para 2(a). His case will have to be initiated only on his serving the sentence as provided in para 2(a). For the reasons recorded above the petition is devoid of merits. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.