Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 803 (PNJ)

Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-05-07

M.JEYAPAUL

body2014
Judgment M. Jeyapaul, J. 1. The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by the State denying the benefit of premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. 2. The fact remains that the petitioner Gurmail Singh was convicted for the offence of murder of his father. The motive being that the father who became the victim for his attack refused to part with the agricultural land which had fallen to his share. The conviction recorded and the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code reached finality. 3. The impugned order passed by the State would read that the petitioner had already completed 10 years and 28 days of actual imprisonment including under trial period and 16 years 5 months and 12 days of imprisonment including remission and excluding parole period. It is an admitted fact that all the authorities chose to recommend premature release of the petitioner. 4. The competent authority made an observation that the petitioner committed murder of his father out of greediness and, therefore, it was heinous in nature. The authority concerned also was of the view that the premature release of the petitioner on the basis of mercy would give a wrong signal to the society and there would be propensity for people to commit such offences. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner launched attack on the order passed by the authority concerned on the ground that irrelevant consideration had weighed in the mind of the authority while considering the premature release sought for by the petitioner. 6. Referring to paragraph 431 of Punjab Jail Manual, 1996, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the offence under Section 302 committed by the petitioner does not fall under the definition of heinous crime as described in the above provision. It is his further submission that if the premature release of the petitioner is not considered the petitioner will ever be in jail throughout his lifetime. 7. The learned State counsel would submit that murder of a father is an extraordinary crime and the competent authority having taken into consideration the heinous nature of crime committed by the petitioner rightly chose to decline premature release of the petitioner. 8. 7. The learned State counsel would submit that murder of a father is an extraordinary crime and the competent authority having taken into consideration the heinous nature of crime committed by the petitioner rightly chose to decline premature release of the petitioner. 8. Paragraph 431 of Punjab Jail Manual, 1996 which is applicable to the case of the petitioner who was convicted way back in the year 1998 defines the crimes which fall under the definition of heinous crimes. The murder of a father committed by a person was not defined as a heinous crime in paragraph 431 of Punjab Jail Manual, 1996. Of course, the competent authority can very well reject the plea for premature release if the competent authority is of the considered view that the premature release of the petitioner would be harmful to the society. 9. No material was produced before the competent authority that the rehabilitation of the petitioner would be an exercise in futility. The petitioner had committed murder of his father as he had not parted with his share of land. In other words he had not eliminated any person in the society at large. Having been aggrieved by the injustice committed to him, it appears that he had re-acted violently and committed murder of his father. 10. If at all a convict was a contract killer or he had cultivated the nature of eliminating the persons in the society just to achieve his personal ends, of course, the release of such a person would have a direct impact on the society. The rehabilitation measures would also become futile. 11. No instance was quoted that he ever entangled with the persons in the society. Even in the jail premises his conduct has been throughout good. The impugned order would read that all the authorities concerned in fact recommended for his premature release. In other words all the authorities concerned were satisfied with the conduct of the petitioner. 12. The persons who are entitled to be released prematurely should not be kept in the prison at the cost of public. Of course the State should protect the law abiding citizens from the criminals. At the same time, the State also should see that the deserving convicts are released prematurely on completion of prescribed period and rehabilitated. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and ors. Of course the State should protect the law abiding citizens from the criminals. At the same time, the State also should see that the deserving convicts are released prematurely on completion of prescribed period and rehabilitated. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and ors. Versus Jagdish 2010(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 464 has held as follows:- “Liberty is one of the most precious and cherished possessions of a human being and he would resist forcefully any attempt to diminish it. Similarly, rehabilitation and social reconstruction of life convict, as objective of punishment become of paramount importance in a welfare state. “State without crime is a utopian theory”. The State has to achieve the goal of protecting the society from convict and also to rehabilitate the offender. There is a very real risk of revenge attack upon the convict from others. Punishment enables the convict to expiate his crime and assist his rehabilitation. The Remission policy manifests a process of reshaping a person who, under certain circumstances, has indulged in a criminal activity and is required to be rehabilitated. Objectives of the punishment are wholly or predominantly reformative and preventive. The basic principle of punishment that “guilty must pay for his crime” should not be extended to the extent that punishment becomes brutal. The matter is required to be examined keeping in view modern reformative concept of punishment. The concept of “Savage Justice” is not to be applied at all. The sentence softening schemes have to be viewed from a more human and social science oriented approach. Punishment should not be regarded as the end but as only the means to an end. The object of punishment must not be to wreak vengeance but to reform and rehabilitate the criminal. More so, relevancy of the circumstances of the offence and the state of mind of the convict, when the offence was committed, are the factors, to be taken note of. The object of punishment must not be to wreak vengeance but to reform and rehabilitate the criminal. More so, relevancy of the circumstances of the offence and the state of mind of the convict, when the offence was committed, are the factors, to be taken note of. At the time of considering the case of pre-mature release of a life convict, the authorities may require to consider his case mainly taking into consideration whether the offence was an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large; whether there was chance of future recurrence of committing a crime; whether the convict had lost his potentiality in committing the crime; whether there was any fruitful purpose of confining the convict any more; the socioeconomic condition of the convict's family and other similar circumstances.” 14. It has been emphasised in the above decision that in a welfare society the State shall take efforts to rehabilitate and reconstruct the life of a convict. 15. The competent authority also had not considered whether the offence committed by the petitioner was an individual act; whether there was any chance for the petitioner to repeat such an offence; whether the petitioner still retained his potentiality to commit such crime and whether purpose would be served if the petitioner is confined forever till his natural life. 16. I find that wholly irrelevant and extraneous considerations had crept in the impugned order. The crime committed by the petitioner does not fall under the parameters of heinous crimes as per paragraph 431 of Punjab Jail Manual, 1996. The conduct of the petitioner has been consistently good as per the opinion expressed by various authorities concerned. One of the family members was eliminated by the petitioner and not a member of the public. There is every chance for the petitioner to get himself rehabilitated and join the main stream of the society. 17. In view of the above, the impugned order stands set aside and the competent authority is directed to pass the order on the plea for premature release made by the petitioner in the light of the observations made by this court within two months from the date of this order failing which the petitioner shall be released on execution bond to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. 18. The Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.