Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Pyari Devi vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 19 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003CRILJ4599, 2004(1)WLC55
JUDGMENT Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner Smt. Pyari Devi wife of convict Birda Singh, has moved this Court by way of letter petition seeking release of her husband Birda Singh on permanent parole. Birda Singh was convicted vide judgment dated July 1, 1987 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beawar (Ajmer) for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 376, IPC and sentenced as under :
Under Section 302, IPC to suffer imprisonment for life Under Section 376, IPC to undergo 7 years imprisonment.
2. The learned trial Judge ordered that sentences shall run consecutively which implied that the total period of incarceration of the convict shall be 27 years. The judgment of the learned trial Judge attained finality and Birda Singh has been serving the sentence in Central Jail Ajmer.
3. It is contended by Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned Amicus Curiae that although in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sessions Court can in its discretion make sentences to run consecutively. Yet the High Court, looking to the fact that both the offences committed by the convict on the same facts, can exercise inherent powers and direct that sentence Shall run concurrently. Reliance is placed on Zulfiwar Ali v. State of U.P. (1986 All LJ 1177) wherein the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in para 26 indicated thus :
"Even if the proviso (a) to Section 31(1), Cr.P.C. is ignored, the sentence passed in this case deserved to be made concurrent. No doubt each of the two charges for which the appellant has been tried was distinct and separate but the offences committed giving rise to the said two charges were akin to each other in the sense that the prosecution had to prove the same facts. In other words the appellant has been held to have committed both the offences on the same facts proved by the prosecution."
4. Mr. Suresh Sahani, learned counsel took us through various judicial pronouncements and persuaded as to make sentences to run concurrently.
5. On scrutinising the material on record we find that the convict had contested his case unto the highest Court but the judgment of the trial Court was upheld and now a prayer has been made seeking modification in the judgment which already had attained finality. We find ourselves unable to exercise inherent powers in such a situation. We are of the considered opinion that by invoking inherent powers a judgment which had attained finality cannot be reviewed.
6. The meaningful question that requires our consideration is as to whether convict Birda Singh is entitled to be released on permanent parole under Rule 9 of Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (for short the 'Parole Rules').
7. Coming to the Parole Rules, we find that following proviso was added below existing Rule 9 by the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole (Amendment) Rules, 1994 :
"Provided that cases of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under Section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure into one of life imprisonment shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless he has served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission, but including the period of detention passed during enquiry, investigation or trial. Such prisoners may be released on parole for 40 years, every year for the remaining period of their sentence subject to the conditions stated above."
8. A look at the aforequoted proviso demonstrates that cases of those convicts who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law or who have been sentenced to death but this sentence has been commuted under Section 433, Cr.P.C. into one of life imprisonment, shall not be placed before the State Committee for permanent release on parole unless the convicts have served 14 years of imprisonment excluding remission. In the instant case convict Birda Singh has already served sentence for a period of more than sixteen years. The contention of the Public Prosecution is that the convict has first served sentence of seven years awarded under Section 376, IPC and as he has only undergone nine years sentence awarded under Section 302, IPC, he is not entitled to be released under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules.
9. We are not impressed by this submission. Parole Rules which have been enacted to protect the prisoners from the prison vices with shield of Article 21 of the Constitution are required to be construed liberally. In Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka, (1997) 2 SCC 642 : (1997 Cri LJ 1508), their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that the constitutional rights of the prisoners shall have to be interpreted in such a way that larger public interest does not suffer while trying to be soft and considerate towards the prisoners. For this, it has to be seen that more injury than is necessary is not caused to a prisoner. At the same time efforts have to be made to reform him so that when he comes out of prison he is a better citizen and not a hardened criminal.
10. Convict. Birda Singh who has already undergone incarceration for a period of more than 16 years, in our opinion, is entitled to invoke Rule 9 of the Parole Rules and his case should be placed for consideration for releasing him on permanent parole before the State Committee.
11. We therefore direct the respondents to place the case of convict Birda Singh for consideration under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules before the State Committee. The writ petition stands disposed of. We record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by learned Counsel Mr. V.R. Bajwa, and Mr. Suresh Sahani.
12. A copy of this order may sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Ajmer.