Jharkhand High Court
Limbu Hembrom & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 23 September, 2011
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Chief Justice
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr). No. 190 of 2011
-----
1.Limbu Hembrom
2.Dadu @ Kirani @ Bijay Hembrom... ... .... .. ...Petitioners
. Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors....,. ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.P. Gupta
For the Respondents : Mr. R. Mukhopadhyay
------
Dated: 23rd September, 2011.
These two writ petitioners, namely, Limbu Hembrom and
Dadu @ Kirani @ Bijay Hembrom, were accused along with the
third accused, namely, Shyam Charan Hembrom. All these three
accused faced the trial in the Sessions Trial No. 128 of 1995
wherein they have been convicted by the Trial Court vide
judgment dated 28th September, 1996 and by same order dated
28th September, 1996, they have been sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment for committing offence punishable under
Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have further
been sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. for committing offence
punishable under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
both the sentences were made to run concurrently.
Writ petitioner no. 1, Limbu Hembrom has served the
sentence of 25 years 1 month and 15 days as on 5th April, 2011
whereas, petitioner no. 2, Dadu @ Kirani @ Bijay Hembrom,
served the sentence of 25 years 3 moths and 10 days as on 5th
April, 2011 including the period of remission. They have served
the requisite sentence for consideration of their cases for pre-
mature release in the light of the policy decision taken by the
State Government time to time. Their cases were considered by
the Competent Committee constituted by the State Government
and by a decision taken in the meeting of the Committee dated
20.05.2011, 25.05.2011 and 27.05.2011 and the Committee found that these two petitioners are not entitled to be released pre-maturely. The case of third accused, namely, Shyam Charan Hembrom was also considered in the same meeting and his case was also rejected by the said Committee. The said accused Shyam Charan Hembrom preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P. (Cr.) No. 25 of 2011, which has been allowed vide order dated 29.07.2011 and in pursuance of the said order, the State Government has already passed the release order as per learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the case of these two writ petitioners is not different than the case of third accused, namely, Shyam Charan Hembrom, who has been released pre-maturely in view of the order of this Court, referred above. It is also submitted that, in fact, the Committee has not applied its mind to the relevant facts and did not consider the opinion given by the Probation Officer and Superintend of Police and by ipse dixit reason, rather to say, no speaking order was passed while rejecting the case of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that looking to the gravity of the offence, these two writ petitioners could not have been released pre-maturely as in case of their release, they will certainly again indulge themselves in the same type of crime and will create the problem for the law and order.
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. In fact, for rejection of the cases of these two petitioners, virtually no reason has been given and important fact is that both of the writ petitioners have already served sentence of more than 25 years as on 5th April, 2011 and that too also almost five months have passed. It is not the case of the respondent-State that they have committed any wrong during their sentence period or they have any opportunity to go the places of residence and they have committed any wrong. It was also not the allegation that persons who have served the sentence for more than 25 years can not re-settle in the society and reformatory steps of punishing the persons can give no results.
In view of the above reasons, for want of any material for detaining these persons in prison beyond the period, for which policy has been taken by the State, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and hence allowed. The decision of the Committee referred above, with respect to these two writ petitioners, namely, Limbu Hembrom and Dadu @ Kirani @ Bijay Hembrom, is set aside and they are directed to be released forthwith, if not needed in any other case and for that appropriate order for their pre-mature release may be passed by the State Government.
(Prakash Tatia, C.J.) Raman./Alankar