ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 6th January, 2018 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.591 of 1983 whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No.394 of 1982 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. The facts in brief need mention for disposal of this appeal are as follows: A written report (Ext.Ka-1) was handed over by the first informant Smt. Gajendri, wife of Raghuraj Singh, the deceased to the effect that litigation was going on between her husband on one side and Kamal Singh, son of Sher Singh of his village and others on the other over the land. Today at 10.30 a.m. when she along with her mother- in-law Kasturi Devi and husband Raghuraj Singh were working in her field, Rohtash, son of Tarif, armed with "Pharsa", Suresh, son of Tarif, armed with Balkati, Sheodan, son of Tarif was having axe and Rajendra son of Kamal Singh came to the field. Rajendra told Raghuraj that you pose yourself to be a big litigant, today I will teach you a lesson. At his instance accused Rohtash, Suresh and Sheodan with an intention to kill, attacked her husband with their respective weapons, due to which he fell down. On the shriek of her mother-in-law, Kunwar Pal, Fakira Khan, Jagvir and several other persons rushed to the spot. On the challenge of the witnesses, the accused fled away. She brought her injured husband to the District Hospital in a bullock cart where later on he succumbed to his injuries after nine days. 4. On the basis of the written report, a first information report, bearing Case Crime No.159 of 1982, under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, was lodged at Police Station Chandpur, Distt. Bulandshahr against the appellant and other co-accused. After the information about the death of the victim, the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC. 5. The appellant was prosecuted for commission of the offence of murder of the deceased-Raghuraj Singh and case was committed to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. Bulandshahr against the appellant and other co-accused. After the information about the death of the victim, the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC. 5. The appellant was prosecuted for commission of the offence of murder of the deceased-Raghuraj Singh and case was committed to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. By order dated 7th March, 1983 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr relying upon the testimony of Smt.Gajendri, PW-3, wife of the victim corroborating with FIR and the medical evidence, found the appellant guilty of causing death of the deceased by inflicting injuries by means of "Balkati", "Pharsa" and "Axe" with intention of causing death under Section 302/34 IPC and awarded him sentence of life imprisonment. 6. On appeal, the High Court came to the conclusion that prosecution has fully established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and upheld the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence, impugned order and the order of the trial court. 8. Having gone through the entire evidence on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to incur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court as well as the trial court. 9. However, it is stated that the appellant has so far undergone more than 14 years of jail sentence and he still remains in jail undergoing his sentence. 10. In our opinion, if that were the case then the State can verify the facts and consider his case for remission in terms of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Rules. In other words, if the appellant is found eligible for his release by the State in terms of the Rules in accordance with law depending upon a case made out by him, the State can always pass appropriate orders on appellant's release. 11. We, therefore, grant liberty to the appellant to apply to the State Government for consideration of his case for release as provided in Cr.PC read with the Rules provided he is able to prove that he has completed the mandatory period of his sentence as prescribed in the Cr.PC/Rules and satisfy all necessary conditions to the satisfaction of the State for his release. 12. With these observations, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.