Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. Through this Crl. Misc. Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, one Chhajju son of Dulha Ram has prayed for the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction that his detention in jail after he has served 10 years actual sentence and 14 years total sentence including remissions is wholly illegal and arbitrary and his detention is wholly unlawful and that he is entitled to release forthwith. 2. Facts : Petitioner along with two other co-accused was tried in a complaint case under Sections 498-A/304-B/306/34, I.P.C. of City Hissar. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar convicted him under Section 304-B, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- vide order dated 24.5.1989. He further sentenced him to undergo RI for 1 1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 498-A read with Section 34, I.P.C. It is stated that he was convicted for what is known as "dowry death" in common parlance under Section 304-B, I.P.C. He was not found guilty of murder nor there was any charge of murder against him. It was a conviction simplicitor under Sections 304-B/498-A, I.P.C. He filed appeal against his conviction and sentence which was dismissed on 6.11.1989. Thereafter in SLP, the sentence of imprisonment for life passed upon him was upheld. In sum, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life simplicitor under Section 304-B, I.P.C. It is stated that he has been in jail since 24.5.1989. He has undergone the sentence as under : Y M D (i) 24.5.1989 to 24.7.2001 12 2 0 (ii) Remissions granted by the Govt. as well as Jail Authorities 4 2 0 Total 16 4 0 Less because of parole 1 3 0 15 1 0 3. It is stated that he has thus undergone more than 10 years actual sentence and more than 14 years sentence including remissions. During his confinement in jail, he has not committed any jail offence. He has maintained good conduct throughout in jail. He fulfills all the conditions essential for the grant of premature release. It is further stated that Section 433-A, Cr. P.C. is not applicable to him because the punishment provided in Section 304-B, I.P.C. is not death sentence but imprisonment for life. He has maintained good conduct throughout in jail. He fulfills all the conditions essential for the grant of premature release. It is further stated that Section 433-A, Cr. P.C. is not applicable to him because the punishment provided in Section 304-B, I.P.C. is not death sentence but imprisonment for life. Section 433-A is applicable only in cases where the offence committed by an accused carried the maximum penalty of death. Section 433-A, Cr. P.C. reads as follows : "433-A. Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases-Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment." Section 304-B, I.P.C. reads as follows : "304-B. Dowry Death- (1) Where the death for a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 4. Offence punishable under Section 304-B, I.P.C. is wholly different from the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. Section 302, I.P.C. punishes the commission of murder which is defined in Section 300, I.P.C. Section 304-B, I.P.C. punishes "dowry death" which is not murder of a woman. Presumption of "dowry death" arises on proof of the following facts : (i) unnatural death of a woman within 7 years of her marriage; (ii) she was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry. 5. Presumption of "dowry death" arises on proof of the following facts : (i) unnatural death of a woman within 7 years of her marriage; (ii) she was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry. 5. If any of these ingredients is missing, there cannot be conviction under Section 304-B, I.P.C. It is stated that the State of Haryana has not granted premature release to the petitioner presumably feeling that it is a case of a murder of a woman or murder in connection with dowry and he is thus required to undergo 14 years actual sentence and as he has not undergone 14 years sentence, he is not entitled to premature release. He is required to undergo 10 years actual sentence and 14 years total sentence including remissions as per the instructions of the Govt. of, Haryana dated 8.8.2000 so as to be eligible for the grant of premature release. His case has to be considered under para 2(b) of instructions dated 8.8.2000 Annexure P-2. It is stated that as per para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual which is applicable to Haryana, he is entitled to premature release after he has served 14 years sentence including remissions. He is not claiming any remission/commutation under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. His case is for remission under Section 432, Cr. P.C. Instructions dated 8.8.2000 are applicable only where premature release is sought through constitutional power i.e. under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Section 433-A Cr. P.C. are whereever applicable, the protection has been provided under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and the guidelines have been issued for the exercise of power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. His case has to be considered under the general instructions for the purpose of premature release. All life convicts have been treated at par for the purpose of Section 432, Cr. P.C. 6. State of Haryana put in written statement contesting the prayer of the petitioner for premature release. His case has to be considered under the general instructions for the purpose of premature release. All life convicts have been treated at par for the purpose of Section 432, Cr. P.C. 6. State of Haryana put in written statement contesting the prayer of the petitioner for premature release. It was stated that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment under Section 304-B, I.P.C. He cannot claim premature release as a matter of right as sentence for life is sentence for whole of the remaining life unless remitted in exercise of the powers conferred by Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India because State Govt. has liberalised the policy regarding premature release of the convicts and as such he cannot claim release prematurely unless the State Govt. reduces or remits the remaining portion of the sentence of the convict through a written order under Section 432, Cr. P.C. He cannot claim premature release as a matter of right because it is only a concession given by the State Govt. after considering the behaviour of the convict inside jail and the gravity and nature of the offence, manner and circumstances in which the crime was committed. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 304-B, I.P.C, he was sentenced under Section 498-A, I.P.C. As per latest Govt. policy embodied in instructions Annexure P-2 dated 8.8.2000, his case for premature release falls under para 2(a) and not under para 2(b). His premature release case will be considered after he completes 14 years actual sentence including under-trial period. He has not yet undergone the requisite sentence. He has undergone 12 years 14 months and 16 days actual sentence including under-trial period. He is not entitled to be considered for premature release. It was stated that the petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life in a case of "dowry death" which is a heinous crime. 7. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that his case for premature release is not governed by para 2(a) of instructions dated 8.8.2000 as it was not murder of a woman nor was it murder in connection with dowry. 7. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that his case for premature release is not governed by para 2(a) of instructions dated 8.8.2000 as it was not murder of a woman nor was it murder in connection with dowry. It was submitted that if it were murder of a woman or murder in connection with dowry, Clause 2(a) of instructions Annexure P-2 dated 8.8.2000 would have come into play which lays down that his case for premature release would be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including under-trial period and 20 years total sentence including remissions. It was submitted that his case for premature release should be considered under para 2(b) of the said instructions which lay down that the case of an adult life convict who has been imprisoned for life but whose case is not covered under para 2(a) of the instructions (ibid) and who has not committed crime which could be said to be heinous. 8. It was submitted that his case is not covered by the provisions of Section 433-A, Cr. P.C. as he was not sentenced to death and it was not commuted into imprisonment for life. It was a case known as "dowry death" as defined in Section 304-B, I.P.C. for which he was convicted. It was submitted that "dowry death" cannot be equated with murder, it cannot be taken to be murder in connection with dowry. It cannot be taken to be murder of a woman. It is a "dowry death" as defined in Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code while murder is defined in Section 300, Indian Penal Code. 9. In para 2(a) of instructions Annexure P-2, the Govt. has enumerated illustratively what a "heinous crime" is ? There may be still "heinous crimes" which have not been enumerated in para 2(a) of the said instructions. What is heinous has been defined in "Chambers 20th Century Dictionary New Edition 1972" as follows : "Heinous - Wicked in a high degree, enormous, odious, atrocious" Atrocious means extremely cruel or wicked. 10. It was submitted that the death of Krishna wife of Chhajju cannot be viewed as her murder in connection with dowry. Krishna burnt herself along with her tiny toddler son the reason being that though her father had spent Rs. 10. It was submitted that the death of Krishna wife of Chhajju cannot be viewed as her murder in connection with dowry. Krishna burnt herself along with her tiny toddler son the reason being that though her father had spent Rs. 40,000/- on her marriage in the year 1984, but her husband Chhajju, her mother-in-law Shanti and brother-in-law Sunder were not satisfied with the dowry she had brought in marriage. They were coercing her all the while for having brought inadequate dowry. It was submitted that if she had been burnt by her husband and his family as, she was not satisfying their greed for dowry, that could have been said, her murder in connection with dowry. In that event, paragraph 2(a) of instructions Annexure P-2 would have been applicable. 11. In my opinion, death of Krishna together with her child could not have been viewed as murder. It was "dowry death" as defined in Section 304-B, I.P.C. In case of dowry death, imprisonment for life is the maximum sentence. Court may not pass maximum sentence but may sentence an accused to 7 years sentence which is the minimum sentence for "dowry death". In case of murder, imprisonment for life is the only punishment which has to be imposed in case of conviction. In case of murder, the Court can pass a sentence of death also. This is how we have to distinguish "dowry death" from murder. Dowry death is defined in Section 304-B, I.P.C. while murder is defined in Section 300, I.P.C. 12. In this case, no act has been done by the accused with the intention of causing death of Krishna and her child. Act imputed to the accused does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in para 2(a) of instructions Annexure P-2 and as such act imputed to the accused cannot be said to fall even within the dictionary meaning of the word "heinous". Accused is entitled to claim that his case for premature release shall be considered in view of para 2(b) of the instructions Annexure P-2. He will be entitled to premature release after he has put in 10 years actual sentence including under-trial period and 14 years total sentence including remissions. This Crl. Misc. Petition is accordingly allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners case for premature release under para 2(b) of instructions Annexure P-2 dated 8.8.2000.