Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ambati Uma Maheswaraiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 September, 2019
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.11483 of 2019
ORDER:(per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice) The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to produce the female convict prisoner, namely Alathuru Pavithra(FCT No.28), W/o A.Chengnaiah before this Court and set her at liberty, after declaring the action of the respondents in not granting her special remission in terms of G.O.Ms No.6, dated 09.01.2019, on par with similarly situated convict prisoners, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that by judgment dated 14.02.2012 in S.C.No.200 of 2012 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, the prisoner named above, who is accused in the said Sessions Case, was convicted inter alia for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.202 of 2014 before this Court and the same is pending. While things stood thus, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.6, Home (Paroles) Department, dated 09.01.2019, granting special remission to life convicted prisoners on the occasion of Republic Day, laying down certain guidelines to be followed while considering the cases of life convicted prisoners for grant of remission. Clause 7 of the said G.O. postulates certain categories of convicted prisoners, referred to in sub-clauses (a) to (d), whose cases can be considered for grant of special remission. It further states that the guidelines would be applicable to life convicts undergoing life sentence, keeping in view their good behaviour and subject to the conditions specified in para 8 of the said G.O. The petitioner, points out to clause 7(a) of the said G.O., which states that cases of convicted female prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life, including those governed by Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) and who have undergone an actual sentence of 05 years, including remand period, and total sentence of 07 years, including remission, as on 26.01.2019 shall be considered 2 for release. The petitioner states that the convict prisoner, Alathuru Pavithra(FCT No.28) has undergone actual sentence of 05 years 09 months and 18 days, including remand period, and a total sentence of 07 years 02 months and 17 days including remission as on 26.01.2019, and therefore, fulfills the requirement under clause 7(a) of G.O. Ms. No.6 dated 09.01.2019 and as such eligible for grant of special remission in terms of the said G.O. However, her case was not recommended to the Government for grant of special remission, while similarly situated convict prisoners were recommended and granted the said benefit on the occasion of Republic Day on 26.01.2019. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed seeking the aforesaid relief.
The 5th respondent-Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Kadapa, filed counter-affidavit disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition except to the extent admitted by her. It is stated that the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, sent a list of eligible life convicted prisoners including the convicted prisoner herein, for grant of special remission in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 09.01.2019, including the name of the convict prisoner in the present case. The Standing Committee, under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department, reviewed the cases of each prisoner and recommended cases of 33 life convicted prisoners for grant of special remission, while deferring the cases of remaining life convicted prisoners, including the prisoner in the present case, to be considered on the next occasion. The Committee has not recommended the name of the convict prisoner on the ground that the quantum of actual sentence served by her is less when compared to the gravity of offence committed by her. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Standing Committee, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.46, Home (Paroles) Department, dated 25.02.2019, granting special remission to 32 life convicted prisoners, subject to certain conditions and also subject to final orders to be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while answering the referral order in WP (Crl.). No.48 of 2014 between Union of India v. V.Sriharan @ Murugan and others. It is further stated that the convict prisoner in the instant case cannot claim the benefit on par with the convict prisoners who were granted special remission, as each case of the prisoner is distinct and different and the Standing Committee considered each of the prisoner's case independently, taking into consideration various factors, such as, age of prisoners, gruesomeness and the 'modus 3 operandi' used by the convict in commission of the offence, the social factor etc. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
In order to appreciate the rival contentions as noted above, it would be appropriate to refer to Clause 7(a) of G.O. Ms. No.6, dated 09.01.2019, which reads as under:
"7. Accordingly, relaxing the orders issued in the reference 1st read above, the Government hereby issues the following guidelines giving one time exemption to consider special remission in the cases of following categories of prisoners who have been convicted by Civil Courts of criminal jurisdiction. These guidelines will be applicable to the following life convicts undergoing life sentence, keeping in view of their good behavior, subject to conditions as specified at para-8 below:-
a) Cases of convicted women prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life, including those governed by Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) who have undergone an actual sentence of 5 years including remand period and total sentence of 7 years including remission as on 26-01-2019 shall be considered for release."
As per the above clause, the female convict prisoners who have undergone an actual sentence of 05 years, including remand period and total sentence of 07 years, including remission as on 26.01.2019 shall be considered for release. The nominal roll of the convict prisoner in this case indicate that Alathuru Pavithra(FCT No.28) has undergone actual sentence of 05 years 09 months and 18 days, including remand period, and a total sentence of 07 years 02 months and 17 days, including remand period and remission as on 26.01.2019. Thus, the convict prisoner, in the instant case, is eligible to be considered for remission as per clause 7(a) of G.O.Ms.No.6. Though her case was recommended by the fourth respondent for grant of remission, but the Standing Committee under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, deferred her case to be reviewed on the next occasion when such special remission would be proposed, on the ground that the quantum of actual sentence served by her is less when compared to the gravity of the offence.
We are of the opinion that the reason on which the case of the convict prisoner has been deferred has no basis. It is to be noted that G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 09.01.2019 lays down certain guidelines to be followed while considering the cases of convict prisoners for grant of remission. The convict, in the instant case would fall under the category specified in sub-clause (a) of clause 7 in the said G.O. When the G.O. formulated certain guidelines and specified certain categories to be released, it is to be seen whether the 4 cases of the prisoners, whose names were recommended, would fall under any such categories. If they satisfy the requirement in terms of the said guidelines, then they would be entitled for the relief. It is not open to the authorities to come up with a new ground, namely, that the quantum of actual sentence served by the convict prisoner is less when compared to the gravity of the offence, for rejecting her case for grant of special remission when such a condition never formed part of the G.O. The respondents are not conferred with any authority to read something into the G.O., which is not there. When the State intends to extend the benefit of premature release to certain categories of prisoners, the authorities cannot sit in appeal and deny the benefit.
Hence, we feel that the action of the respondents in not granting special remission to Alathuru Pavithra(FCT No.28), in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 09.01.2019, is illegal.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith release the convicted prisoner, Alathuru Pavithra(FCT No.28), by extending the remission granted under G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 09.01.2019, if she is not required in any other crime.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
__________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ ________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Date: 04.09.2019 pab 5 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.11483 of 2019 DATE: 04.09.2019 pab