Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamal Singh vs The State Of Haryana And Ors. on 20 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ1990
ORDER K.K. Srivastava, J.
1. Kamal Singh, a life-convict, who is confined in Central Prison, Ambala, seeks his premature release by means of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India
2. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment vide judgment dated 6-10-1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa. The case against the petitioner was that he developed illicit relationship with Smt. Gurmej Kaur, wife of the deceased, Hira Singh, an agriculturist of village Jagmalera. The petitioner had been assisting deceased Hira Singh in agricultural work and residing at village Jagmalera with deceased Hira Singh. The petitioner Kamal Singh is otherwise resident of village Amritsar-Kalan.
3. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner was carrying on his illicit relations with Smt. Gurmej Kaur for the last several years. In the third week of June, 1983, Gurmej Kaur left her house and returned on the third clay, i.e. on 21-6-1983 at about 8.30 P. ML alongwith petitioner Kamal Singh. The deceased, Hira Singh took exception to his wife Gurmej Kaur leaving his house in this manner with her paramour Kamal Singh and leaving the children uncared for. Gurmej Kaur felt insulted and offended. On the exhortation of Gurmej Karu for teaching her husband, Hira Singh, a lesson for his life for making such enquiry, petitioner Kamal Singh took out a licenced pistol from his daba and shot al Hira Singh, who was hit with the shot and fell down and died in the court-yard itself. After this occurrence, the petitioner left the scene of occurrence with Gurmej Kaur.
4. The petitioner, as staled earlier, was convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC besides other sentences passed under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner is now undergoing life imprisonment at Central Prison, Ambala.
5. Case of premature release of the petitioner convict was considered by the respondent and the same has been declined by Memo. No. 36/28/94-1 JJ (II) dated 20-9-1994 on the following grounds "Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in which this life convict committed the heinous, ghastly murder of the deceased Hira Lal, who just made enquiries from his wife Gurmej Kaur that where she had gone alter leaving the children. Then Kamal Singh accused, who was accompanying the aforesaid Gurmej Kaur, took out an unlicenced pistol and fired a short at Hira Singh, who died at the spot. The Committee taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, is of the opinion that his premature release case should be reconsidered under para 2(a) of the Govt. instructions dated 4-2-1993 when he will complete 14 years actual sentence and after earning atleast 6 years remissions."
6. The recommendations of the State Level Committee referred to above, were accepted by the Government, as is apparent from annexure R1, issued under the signatures of Under Secretary Jails and Judicial, for Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Jails Department, and the same was communicated to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, respondent No. 3 vide endorsement No. 18538-GI/G-3, dated 30-9-1994. for informing the petitioner-convict, Kamal Singh about the decision taken by the State Government regarding his premature release and is under intimation to the Additional Director General of Prisions, Haryana.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his case for premature release, the petitioner-convict has now approached this Court and filed this petition.
8. Non appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing of the case.
9. I have heard Shri S. K. Hooda, learned Assistant Advocate General, for the State of Haryana, appearing for the respondents, who has taken me through the record of the case and also the impugned order, as also the relevant instructions issued by the Slate of Haryana regarding the premature release.
10. Case of premature release of the petitioner-convict has been declined by the State Government while accepting the recommendations of the State Level Committee, which had taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner had committed a heinous and ghastly murder of Hira Singh, who just made enquiries from his wife Gurmej Kaur that where she had gone after leaving the children. The Committee after considering the fads and circumstances of the case took the view that the case of the petitioner convict was covered under para 2(a) of the Govt. instructions dated 4-2-1993 and as such, his case of premature release will be considered after the petitioner-convict underwent 14 years' actual sentence and after earning atleast 6 years' remission. A copy of the instructions, referred to above, has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P3. Para 2(a) of the instructions dated 4-2-1993 deals with the cases of the convicts, whose death sentence has been commutted to life imprisonment and convicts, who have been awarded imprisonment for life, for having committed a heinous crime, such as murder with wrongful confinement, for extortion/robbery, murder with rape, murder while undergoing life sentence, murder with dacoity, murder under T. D. Act, 1987, murder with untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, murder in connection with dowry, bride burning, murder of a child under the age of 14 years, murder of handicapped or pregnant women or murder after abduction or kidnapping, murder on professional/hired basis, murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces or burning/dragging the body as evident from judgment of sentence, persistent bad conduct in the prisons and those who cannot for some definite reasons be pre-maturely released without danger or public safety; or convicts who have been imprisoned for life under Section 120- B of I.P.C. or life convicts who have been awarded life imprisonment a second time under N.D.P.S. Act, or life convicts who have been imprisoned for life second time under any offence.
Their cases may be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including undertrial period and after earning at least 6 years remissions.
Para 2(b) of the instructions provided as under:-
"Adult life convicts, who have been imprisoned for life but whose cases are not covered under (a)above and who have committed crime which axe not considered heinous as mentioned in clause (a) above.
Their cases may be considered after completion of 10 years of actual sentence including undertrial period, provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is less than 14 years."
11. The facts and circumstances of this case go to show that the petitioner-convict was having illicit relations with Gurmej Kaur, wife of Hira Singh-deceased. Gurmej Kaur had left the house of her husband, i.e. the deceased Hira Singh in the third week of June, 1983, and returned on third day, i.e. 21-6-1983, accompanied by the petitioner convict and she was rebuked by her husband for leaving the house and the children in the aforesaid manner. Gurmej Kaur felt offended and she is stated to have suggested the petitioner-convict Kamal Singh that Hira Singh should be taught a lesson for making enquiries and thereupon Kamal Singh took out a licensed pistol from his daba and shot Hira Singh dead in the Courtyard itself. This is a simple murder case and the murder was committed at the behest of Gurmej Kaur, wife of the deceased, Hira Singh. It was not a petty matter where the deceased Hira Singh made querry from Gurmej Kaur as to where she has gone. But it is a case where Gurmej Kaur had left the house to meet her paramour, Kamal Singh and when her husband Hira Singh deceased took her to task, she exhorted Kamal Singh that Hira Singh be taught a lesson, whereupon Kamal Singh shot Hira Singh dead. This murder was committed on the cause of a woman, which is one of the common causes out of the particular three cases so well known, i.e. the wealth, woman and land, for which murders are usually committed. If considered in this background, the instant case cannot be said to be somewhat uncommon to be taken out of the category of offences mentioned in para 2(b) of the instructions and covered by para 2(a) of the instructions. The instant murder cannot be said to-be covered by any of the categories specifically mentioned as heinous crime in para 2(a) of the instructions/referred to above.
12. Merely because the State Level Committee thought it to be a heinous crime, will not make this offence, in fact, a heinous crime. If that be the position, then in the instant case, the murder cannot be treated as ghastly and consequently heinous within the scope of para 2(a) of the instructions.
13. In view of what has been discussed above, the respondents have committed an error in treating the instant case of murder, in which the petitioner-convict has been awarded life imprisonment and is undergoing the sentence is Central Prison, Ambala, as a heinous crime covered by Para 2(a) of the instructions. The case is evidently covered under para 2(b) of the instructions and that means that the case of premature release may be considered after completion of ten years of actual sentence, including the undertrial period, provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 14 years. As per para 1 of the written statement filed by the respondents, the petitioner-convict has undergone the sentence 28-2-1995 as under :-
Years Months Days
-------------------------------
Undertrial period 1 3 10
Sentence undergone 10 4 25
after conviction
-------------------------------
Total 11 8 5
Less parole period (-) 0 8 5
-------------------------------
Actual sentence 11 0 0
undergone "
-------------------------------
Evidently the petitioner-convict has undergone actual sentence of more than 10 years and as a matter of fact, 11 years till 28-2-1995, i.e. more than 1 Vi prior to the present date. Case of premature release of the petitioner is well covered under para 2(b) of the instructions and the respondents have to lake a decision regarding the premature release of the petitioner convict under para 2(b) of the instructions aforesaid.
14. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure R1, passed by respondent No. 1 and communicated by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3, is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of premature release of the petitioner under para 2(b) of the instructions dated 4-2-1993 within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order either from this Court or a certified copy thereof being filed on behalf of the petitioner.