Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1183 (RAJ)

Suresh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-05-31

GOVIND MATHUR, NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2011
Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—The two letters addressed to Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court by 12 prisoners lodged at Central Jail, Udaipur are treated as this one petition for writ. All the 12 prisoners are undergoing life term imprisonment at Central Jail, Udaipur and being eligible they applied for grant of permanent parole as per the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”). The necessary details relating to each of the petitioners are as under:- 1. Suresh – This petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for life imprisonment. As on 28.2.2011 he has served 20 years 10 months and 25 days sentence, out of that 17 years 4 months and 10 days is actual imprisonment. Permanent parole has been denied to him on basis of the negative recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara. The recommendation so made is available on record as Anx.R/2 and according to that the parole is not desirable to this petitioner as he committed murder of his wife, thus, apprehension exists for breach of peace. 2. The petitioner Uda was sentenced for life term under the judgment dated 29.11.1996 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Cases, Udaipur. He has undergone 17 years 10 months and 4 days actual imprisonment excluding 5 years and 7 months jail and State remission. The parole has been denied to him as he has not availed three regular paroles under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. 3. The petitioner Moga is also undergoing life term imprisonment and he has served sentence for a term of 21 years 7 months 2 days including State and jail remission for a term of 4 years 9 months 18 days as on 28.2.2011. The permanent parole has been denied to him as he has not availed three regular paroles as prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. 4. The petitioner Haja was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 26.8.1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur. He too is undergoing life term imprisonment and he has served the same for actual term of 14 years 8 months 25 days. On inclusion of jail/State remission his total term of sentence is 18 years 4 months 28 days. He too is undergoing life term imprisonment and he has served the same for actual term of 14 years 8 months 25 days. On inclusion of jail/State remission his total term of sentence is 18 years 4 months 28 days. Permanent parole has been denied to him that while availing first parole he did not report to prison and absconded. 5. The petitioner Bhanu Kumar was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 19.9.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara. He has undergone 18 years 7 months 8 days imprisonment including jail and State remission. His actual term of imprisonment is 15 years 7 months 4 days. Parole has been denied to him on the count that he has not availed three regular paroles as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. 6. The petitioner Gajraj was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 29.11.1999 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Cases, Pratapgarh and he has served sentence for a term of 18 years 4 months 25 days including jail/State remission. The actual term of imprisonment of this petitioner is 15 years 6 months 3 days. Permanent parole has been denied to him for the reason that he has not availed three regular paroles. 7. The prisoner petitioner Ramu has also served sentence for a term of 17 years 1 month including State and jail remission as on 28.2.2011 and his actual term of imprisonment is 14 years 5 months 22 days. The permanent parole is denied to him as he availed only one parole of 20 days as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. 8. The petitioner prisoner Nathu Singh as on 28.2.2011 completed 13 years 10 months 22 days actual term of imprisonment and as such on that day he was not eligible to be considered for grant of permanent parole. 9. The prison petitioner Narain as on 28.2.2011 completed 13 years 9 months 29 days of actual term of imprisonment, therefore, he too was not eligible for permanent enrollment on the day his case was considered. 10. Same is the position with petitioner prisoner Seeta Ram who completed 13 years 10 months 3 days actual imprisonment as on 28.2.2011. 11. 9. The prison petitioner Narain as on 28.2.2011 completed 13 years 9 months 29 days of actual term of imprisonment, therefore, he too was not eligible for permanent enrollment on the day his case was considered. 10. Same is the position with petitioner prisoner Seeta Ram who completed 13 years 10 months 3 days actual imprisonment as on 28.2.2011. 11. The petitioner Amarjeet Singh too did not complete 14 years actual sentence on the date of consideration, thus, he was also not found eligible to receive permanent parole. 12. The prisoner petitioner Kamla was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code on 27.1.1999 and this prisoner has already completed 14 years 2 months 25 days actual term of imprisonment and 17 years 6 months 29 days term of imprisonment on inclusion of jail and State remission. 2. While exercising powers under sub-section (6) of Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure the Government of Rajasthan framed the Rules of 1958 and as per Rule 9 of the Rules “A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, (one-fourth) of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on 1st parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his character has been exceedingly well and if the prisoner's conduct has been such that he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through the State Committee for permanent release on parole on such conditions as deemed fit by the Superintendent Jail and the District Magistrate concerned; the chief condition among them being that if the prisoner while on parole commits any offence or abets, directly or indirectly, commission of any offence, he has to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence in addition to any sentence imposed upon him by reason of such an offence. In cases the permanent release on parole is rejected the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence. In cases the permanent release on parole is rejected the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole for 40 days every year subject to the same conditions for the remaining period of his sentence. Provided the cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 days every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above”. 3. As per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958, a prisoner whose conduct is well and if he is not likely to relapse into crime, his case may be recommended to the Government through State committee for permanent release on parole. The consideration for permanent parole, can be made only after serving 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention passed during inquiry, investigation or trial. 4. The object of granting permanent parole is to make efforts to rehabilitate convicts, that is necessary as an accepted norm in today's jurisprudence that criminals are not borne, but made because of several factors including social, economic, political and even cultural. The parole, though is a creation of Rules, but essentially is a right attached with a prisoner automatically for the reason that every prisoner is a part of society and the society being a larger agency to watch welfare of its every member is under obligation to make all efforts to bring the convicts in main stream of the society through their rehabilitation. The parole, therefore, is a mode to make efforts to rehabilitate convicts and it is not a concession but a human right. 5. With the background as above, the author of the Rules of 1958 with open eyes created a mechanism of parole even for the life term prisoners. The parole, therefore, is a mode to make efforts to rehabilitate convicts and it is not a concession but a human right. 5. With the background as above, the author of the Rules of 1958 with open eyes created a mechanism of parole even for the life term prisoners. This was done with a view to keep even convict of a serious offence with the main stream of the society on washing his sin by remaining behind the bars for a substantial period. A convict, may be of a serious offence is not suppose to remain imprisoned for an indefinite period. The life term convicts are also entitled to spend rest of the sentence outside the prison after facing substantial part thereof. While considering case for grant of permanent parole under the Rules of 1958 the main factor is rehabilitation of the convict and for this purpose the yard stick settled is assessment of the conduct of the prisoner. By such assessment the chances of reinvolvement of the convict with crime is to be examined. The other factors than to above are not of much relevance. A prisoner should be awarded parole with a view to keep him in touch with main stream of the society and to rehabilitate him. An unnecessary fear of breach of peace is also absolutely unwarranted. The competent authority considering the cases of parole must understand that it is essentially dealing with the human affairs and not the machines. As such the technical considerations are required to be avoided by such authority. By adopting mechanical mode of consideration the legal sanction given to the parole under the Rules of 1958 should not be frustrated. 6. In the instant case we found that the parole has been denied to the petitioners viz. Suresh, Uda, Moga, Haja, Bhanu Kumar, Gajraj, Ramu and Kamla purely on the consideration those are not relevant for grant of permanent parole. The parole to prisoner Suresh has been denied on the count of apprehension of breach of peace. There is no foundation for such an apprehension. The conduct of this petitioner has been found satisfactory by the jail authorities. This man also availed three paroles, but merely because of fear psychosis parole has been denied to him. 7. The other petitioners named above also suffered absolutely irrelevant consideration for denial of parole. There is no foundation for such an apprehension. The conduct of this petitioner has been found satisfactory by the jail authorities. This man also availed three paroles, but merely because of fear psychosis parole has been denied to him. 7. The other petitioners named above also suffered absolutely irrelevant consideration for denial of parole. These petitioners did not avail three paroles before claiming permanent parole, but there is nothing on record that may reflect their conduct adverse to the normal norms or indicating any sign to apprehend their reinvolvement in criminal activities. Pertinent to note here that jail authorities verified conduct of these petitioners as satisfactory. The competent authority instead of examining conduct of the petitioners travelled purely on technical grounds and rejected claim of the petitioners in mechanical manner. The competent authority, as a matter of fact, failed to act as per true spirit of the Rules of 1958 and that resulted into an action contrary to the objects of the Rules of 1958. 8. All the petitioners viz. Suresh, Uda, Moga, Haja, Bhanu Kumar, Gajraj, Ramu and Kamla, thus, are entitled for permanent parole on basis of their conduct as per Rules of 1958. The remaining petitioners viz. Nathu Singh, Narain, Seeta Ram and Amarjeet Singh were not eligible as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 for permanent parole being not having served imprisonment for 14 years. The respondents, therefore, rightly rejected claim of these petitioners. However, reconsideration in cases of these petitioners is also desirable on completion of 14 years of actual term of imprisonment. 9. In view of the discussion made above, this petition for writ stands disposed of by directing the respondents to grant permanent parole to the petitioners viz. Suresh, Uda, Moga, Haja, Bhanu Kumar, Gajraj, Ramu and Kamla with usual terms and conditions as prescribed under the Rules of 1958. The cases of the remaining petitioners viz. Nathu Singh, Narain, Seeta Ram and Amarjeet Singh shall be reconsidered on completion of 14 years of actual term of imprisonment.