Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 6 (RAJ)

Vaga Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2012-01-02

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - A letter written by the convicted prisoner, Vagaram, incarcerated in Central Jail, Jodhpur was received by this Court. The said letter has been treated as a letter petition. Subsequently, Bharat Sharma has appeared to represent the accused-petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, vide judgment dated 25.02.2010, he was convicted for offences under Sections 304-B and 498A IPC; he was sentenced to a term of ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the former offence, and for a term of three years of rigorous imprisonment for the latter offence. According to the State, the petitioner has completed four years, seven months and thirteen days of incarceration. Since the petitioner was eligible for being released on his first parole of twenty days, he had applied for the same. However, vide order dated 26th July, 2011, the case of the petitioner had been rejected ostensibly on the ground that the police had submitted an adverse report dated 23.05.2011 against him. Hence, this petition before this court. 3. Mr. Bharat Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that according to the police, the petitioner is "an alcoholic". Therefore, he is likely to engage in fights and assaults. However, the said observation made by the police is absolutely untenable, as the petitioner has been serving his sentence peacefully for the last four years. Since he has been incarcerated for the last four years, he does not have any access to liquor. Hence, the police is unjustified in claiming that he happens to be an alcoholic. Moreover, the report of the Superintendent of the Central Jail is in his favour. 4. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Mehar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that prior to the incident, the petitioner was alcoholic. Therefore, the police is justified in claiming that the petitioner continues to be an alcoholic. Hence, he is likely to create a law and order situation, in case he were to be released on parole. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. Although incarceration of a person necessarily implies deprivation of his fundamental rights, but the fundamental rights are not completely obliterated. The twin rights of "life" and "personal liberty" continue to glow even in the dark corners of a prison. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. Although incarceration of a person necessarily implies deprivation of his fundamental rights, but the fundamental rights are not completely obliterated. The twin rights of "life" and "personal liberty" continue to glow even in the dark corners of a prison. Realising these twin aspects, the Parole Rules were created as a piece of social beneficial legislation for the benefit of the large number of convicted prisoners. Even when the convicted prisoner is serving a "term of imprisonment" or of "life imprisonment", he does have a right of consideration of his case for parole. During the parole period personal liberty is restored for a limited period. Repeatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have held that parole serves three purposes; firstly, it re-establishes the link between the prisoner and his family; secondly, it permits the prisoner to move freely in the mainstream of society; thirdly, it is a motivational method to encourage the prisoner to reform himself during the period of incarceration. In fact, Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 clearly states that parole should be used as a means to teach good behaviour to the prisoner. 7. Keeping these views in mind, both Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the parole should be granted as liberally as possible. While considering the cases, the Advisory Committee should be alive to the constitutional mandate and to the philosophy which underlines the Parole Rules. 8. The prisoner has a right of consideration, the right is a substantive one and not an illusory one. Consideration by the Advisory Committee has to be an objective one and not a subjective one. In catena of cases, this Court has held that the Advisory Committee should not ipsi dixi accept the adverse report of the police. This Court has also held that the report of the Superintendent of the Jail is more important than the report of the police officer. For, during the period of incarceration, it is the Superintendent of the Jail who observes the changes in the convicted prisoner. Therefore, he is in a better position to inform the Advisory Committee about the behavioural changes. 9. For, during the period of incarceration, it is the Superintendent of the Jail who observes the changes in the convicted prisoner. Therefore, he is in a better position to inform the Advisory Committee about the behavioural changes. 9. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been serving his sentence for the last four years, obviously he cannot have access to liquor during the period of his incarceration. Someone who has not consumed liquor for the last four years, cannot be classified as "an alcoholic". Therefore, the basis of the police report, wherein the police claims the petitioner to be an alcoholic, is misplaced. The police has not given any reason for its conclusion. In catena of cases, this court has clearly observed that the committee should not be duly influenced by an adverse police report unless the police report is accompanied by certain evidence. Adverse police report is not be accepted ipsi dixi. Moreover, the committee should be aware of the fact that it is the Superintendent of the Jail who has observed the conduct and the behaviour of the convicted prisoner. In case, the Superintendent were to give a favourable report, the same should be accepted on its face value, until and unless, there is some evidence to the contrary. In the present case, the Superintendent of the Central Jail has unequivocally recommended the case of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the committee has erred in accepting the adverse report of the police and in ignoring the favourable report of the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jodhpur. 10. Thus, this Court quashes and sets aside the order dated 26.07.2011 qua the petitioner and directs the respondents to release the petitioner on his first parole of twenty days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner is directed to report back to the Central Jail, Jodhpur on the 20th day of his parole. He is directed to maintain peace and tranquillity during his furlough. The petition is, hereby, allowed.Parole writ allowed. *******