Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 333 (PNJ)

Subash v. State of Haryana

2004-03-18

K.S.GAREWAL

body2004
JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - Subhash has filed this application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeking grant of parole under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Temporary Release Act of 1988. Parole has been sought to conduct repairs of his house and the period for which parole is sought is four weeks. Petitioners case had been initiated by the Authorities on November 20, 2003. According to the petitioner, he is permanent resident of Pabra where he owns a house. The condition of the house is very bad and there are minor children at home. There is no other person present at home to repair the house. Petitioners father is also in jail. The above facts have been certified as correct by the Gram Panchayat. 2. Notice of motion was issued to the State and reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Jagjit Singh, Superintendent Central Jail, Hisar who has stated that the District Magistrate, Hisar did not recommend parole on the ground that the convict was undergoing imprisonment in a case of social evil. Reliance was placed on the report of the District Magistrate, Hisar Annexures R/T-I. This report was accepted by the Director General of Prisons Haryana who rejected the request for parole on March 1, 2004 vide orders annexures R/T-II. 3. The report of the District Magistrate is based on verification conducted by Superintendent of Police, Hisar who had reported that the convict owned a house which had been "spoiled" and it was necessary to repair it, convicts children were minor and were unable to do the repair work but since the convict was undergoing imprisonment in a case of social evil, his release on parole was not recommended. 4. It is a pity that crime and punishment in our country are cloaked in myth and mis-information and the criminal justice policy is quite vague and imprecise. The convict must return to civil society after he has completed his term of imprisonment. Denial of parole amounts to denial of an opportunity to live, even for a brief period of 4 weeks, in the village to which the prisoner must return. If the convict is given an opportunity to live with his children for four weeks his ultimate rehabilitation would become easy. Denial of parole amounts to denial of an opportunity to live, even for a brief period of 4 weeks, in the village to which the prisoner must return. If the convict is given an opportunity to live with his children for four weeks his ultimate rehabilitation would become easy. It can never be the intention of the criminal justice system or the sentencing policy to make it difficult for a convict to settle down peacefully in a non-violent and purposeful way. Therefore, parole should be the rule. An exception can only be made in a case where the convict is a violent person who has not shown any remorse or reform and who may commit serious crime if released on parole. In the present case the convict is undergoing imprisonment for dowry death and has children at home who lost their mother and whose father is undergoing sentence, compassion should be the rule. 5. It needs to be stressed that the role of the police is over after the accused has been sent up for trial. When the accused is before the trial court, his fate depends upon the trial Judge who decides the case on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecutor. After conviction sentence is passed the convict enters the prison system. The object of sentencing is not just punishment but also reform. The reason why the convict is in prison is the crime he committed but to deny benefit of parole on the basis of that very crime is a great travesty of justice. It amounts to punishing the convict twice; once for committing the offence and again by denying him parole. It also seems illogical to require the police to recommend whether or not convict should be released on parole. The prison authorities should make up their minds on their own. 6. In the present case the District Magistrate asked the police to assist in checking out whether the convicts house needed repair or not. If the Superintendent of Police had made some recommendation the District Magistrate should have examined the case on its merits and not blindly accepted the police recommendation to deny parole on the ground that the case was one of social evil. Similarly it is strange that a Senior Officer like Director General of Prisons also accepted the report of the District Magistrate and rejected the request for parole. Similarly it is strange that a Senior Officer like Director General of Prisons also accepted the report of the District Magistrate and rejected the request for parole. If rehabilitation of the convict is the object of criminal justice policy then parole should be the rule and denial of parole the exception only in extreme cases. 7. This petition is accepted, recommendation of District Magistrate, dated February 4, 2003 (Annexure R-1) and the acceptance thereof by Director General of Prisons on March 1, 2004 (Annexure R-2) are hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be released on parole for house repairs for a period of four weeks on the usual terms and conditions. Appeal allowed.