Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harinder Singh vs State Of Punjab Etc on 17 December, 2014
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Kuldip Singh
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA
2014.12.18 14:11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision : 17.12.2014
Crl.W.P. 1081 of 2014 (O/M)
Harinder Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
Crl.W.P. 993 of 2014 (O/M)
Surjit Kaur ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners
in both the petitions.
Mr. Ashish Sanghi, Deputy A.G. Punjab.
1. Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
KULDIP SINGH, J.
By this single judgment, I will dispose of Crl.W.P. No. 1081 of 2014, filed by the petitioner Harinder Singh and Crl.W.P. No. 993 of 2014, filed by the petitioner Surjit Kaur. Both the petitioners have filed identical criminal writ petitions seeking directions to the respondents to premature release them, as per the Government Instructions dated 8.7.1991 (Annexure-P-1). The petitioners have claimed that in pursuance to the common order passed by this Court SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.18 14:11 Crl.W.P. Nos. 1081 and 993 of 2014 (O/M) -2- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document in Crl. Writ Petition Nos. 1075 and 1076 of 2013 on 4.2.2014 (Annexure-P-3), whereby the order dated 19.2.2013, passed by the State Government, was set aside and the petitioners were directed to be released on interim parole/bail. Now, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 28.5.2014 (Annexure-P-4) and orders dated 10.4.2014 (Annexure-4), passed by the State Government in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 4.2.2014, whereby the case of the petitioners for premature release has been rejected by the Chief Minister of Punjab.
For brevity, the facts are being taken from Crl.W.P. No. 1081 of 2014. Harinder Singh and his mother Surjit Kaur (petitioners) were booked in FIR No. 27 dated 29.4.1994 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Kurali, District Roopnagar. Suffice to say that after the trial they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Roopnagar, on 15.10.1997. The petitioners preferred a criminal appeal i.e. CRA No. 810-DB of 1997, before this Court, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.10.1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Roopnagar, which was dismissed, vide order dated 15.10.2001. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No. 7636 of 2002 for condonation of delay by filing the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 6.9.2002. In this way, the appeals preferred by the petitioners against their conviction and SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.18 14:11 Crl.W.P. Nos. 1081 and 993 of 2014 (O/M) -3- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document sentence before the superior courts were dismissed.
According to the petitioners, their work and conduct remained good and satisfactory inside the jail as well as outside, while on parole. Both the petitioners have already undergone 17 years and 10 months of actual sentence and more than 25 years and 10 months with remissions.
It is pleaded that as per the Instructions dated 8.7.1991 (Annexure-P-1), issued by the Punjab Government regarding pre- release of the life convicts, a male person is required to undergo 12 years of actual sentence and 18 years with remission, whereas a female person is required to undergo 8 years of actual sentence and 12 years with remission. The petitioners fulfill all the said conditions. The case of the petitioners was duly recommended for pre-mature release. However, the Government, vide order dated 19.2.2013 (Annexure-P-2) in the case of Harinder Singh and order dated 26.4.2013 (Annexure-P-2) in the case of Surjit Kaur, rejected the case of pre-mature release of the petitioners. Both the petitioners thereafter filed Crl.W.P. No. 1075 of 2013 titled as Surjit Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others., and Crl.W.P. No. 1076 of 2013 titled as Harinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and others., challenging the rejection orders dated 19.2.2013 and 26.4.2013 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the State Government. The said orders passed by the State Government were set aside by this Court, vide common order dated 4.2.2014 (Annexure-P-3). The case of the petitioners fell SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.18 14:11 Crl.W.P. Nos. 1081 and 993 of 2014 (O/M) -4- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document under the category of Class 'B' i.e. heinous crime. The petitioners were released on interim bail to the satisfaction of District Magistrate concerned. The petitioners are now on parole/bail. The State Government, again after reconsidering the case, has rejected the case of the petitioners, vide orders dated 10.4.2014 and 28.5.2014 (Annexure-P-4). It is stated that the orders dated 10.4.2014 and 28.5.2014 (Annexure-P-4) are against the Government Policy and are liable to be set aside.
The State Government, in its reply, has taken the plea that keeping in view the directions of this Court in order dated 4.2.2014 (Annexure-P-3), the case of the petitioners was again considered and rejected. The petitioners have surrendered in Central Jail, Patiala, on 18.8.2014. It was stated that the petitioner Harinder Singh has undergone about 17 years, 4 months and 17 days of actual sentence of imprisonment and 22 years, 2 months and 19 days with remission, whereas the petitioner Surjit Kaur has undergone 17 years, 4 months and 17 days of actual sentence of imprisonment and 22 years, 2 months and 19 days with remission, excluding parole. It is stated that the matter was considered in the light of the relevant policy of the Government. The State has justified its orders. It is stated that accused/petitioner Harinder Singh alongwith his mother accused/petitioner Surjit Kaur had killed one and half year old daughter by poisoning. The case was rightly rejected under Sections 432 and 433 (A) of the Code of Criminal SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.18 14:11 Crl.W.P. Nos. 1081 and 993 of 2014 (O/M) -5- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Procedure, 1973.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have also carefully gone through the file.
A perusal of the file shows that both the petitioners, namely, Harinder Singh and Surjit Kaur had filed Crl. W.P. Nos. 1075 and 1076 of 2013 before this Court, which were disposed of by a common order dated 4.2.2014 (Annexure-P-3). During the arguments, the learned counsel has raised the similar arguments, as are raised in the present case.
In the said cases, the learned counsel for State of Punjab had conceded that both the petitioners have already completed the period of actual imprisonment as well as period of remission in compliance with the policy instructions dated 8.7.1991. However, it is pleaded that the petitioners were held guilty for committing the murder of a female child of one and a half year old and, therefore, the Chief Minister of Punjab has rightly rejected the case of the petitioners for their pre-mature release. Their earlier prayer for pre-mature release was rejected by the State Government on the ground that they have killed one and a half year old female child and the crime falls under the category of heinous and, therefore, they do not deserve any leniency. The State Government had observed as under, while passing order dated 19.2.2013 (Annexure-P-2) :-
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA2014.12.18 14:11 Crl.W.P. Nos. 1081 and 993 of 2014 (O/M) -6- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
"4. Although this convict has completed the sentence for grant of premature release and the concerned District Authorities have also recommended her case, but this convict has killed small child Harpreet Kaur by giving poisonous substance in connivance with his co-accused, therefore, the offence committed by him is a heinous, inhuman and beastle crime and in case, such convict is released from jail on mercy basis, it will give bad message to the society and other persons in the society will be encouraged to commit such offences. ...... "
The State Government was directed to re-consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the relevant policy framed by the Punjab Government and take a final decision within 3 months. Till then, the petitioners were ordered to be released on parole on their furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned, giving an undertaking that they will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and shall not indulge in any criminal activity during parole. It was further directed that after the receipt of the order from the State Government, the Superintendent, District Jail, Roopnagar, shall inform the petitioners accordingly. It was further directed that if the case of the petitioners was not accepted by the State of Punjab, the petitioners shall surrender before the jail authorities.
In pursuance to the said order, the State Government had passed identical orders dated 28.5.2014 and 10.4.2014 (Annexure-P-4). The relevant extracts are reproduced below :- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.18 14:11 Crl.W.P. Nos. 1081 and 993 of 2014 (O/M) -7- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
"4. Whereas this Convict has killed her own grand-
daughter aged 1½ years after giving poisonous substance which is very heinous, inhuman and beastly crime and in case, such convict is released from jail on mercy ground, it will give wrong signal to the society an other persons will be encouraged to commit such type of crime."
It shows that the State Government has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioners have killed one and a half year old female child by poisoning her. The said offence is a heinous, inhumane and beastly crime and even in such a case, if the convict is released from jail on mercy basis, it will give wrong signal to the society and other persons will be encouraged to commit such type of crimes. Therefore, the case of the petitioners for premature release was rejected by the Chief Minister of Punjab, while exercising powers under Sections 432 and 433 Cr.P.C.
I am of the view that the impugned orders dated 28.5.2014 and 10.4.2014 (Annexure-P-4) are not sustainable in the eye of law. The fact that the petitioners were involved in the killing of a one and a half year old female child was raised and considered by this Court, while deciding their previous criminal writ petitions on 4.2.2014. The Court had observed that the impugned orders passed in the case of the petitioners do not conform to the policy formulated by the Government, while invoking its statutory power under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.12.18 14:11 Crl.W.P. Nos. 1081 and 993 of 2014 (O/M) -8- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document constitutional powers of the Governor of the State. Again, the same orders have been passed on the same grounds. Therefore, it will meet the same fate.
Consequently, the impugned orders dated 28.5.2014 and 10.4.2014 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the State Government are hereby set aside. The State Government is directed to again consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the observations made by this Court in the order dated 4.2.2014 (Annexure-P-3). The State Government shall not take the same grounds, while rejecting the case of the petitioners for premature release. The period of detention, as mentioned above, shall be specifically taken into consideration. This Court has been informed that since the petitioners have surrendered before the jail authorities, therefore, they (petitioners) be again ordered to be released on parole. In view of the matter, the petitioners are ordered to be released parole on their furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned. The fresh orders shall be passed by the State Government within three months and after the receipt of the orders from the State Government, the Superintendent, District Jail Roopnagar, shall inform the petitioners accordingly. Both the petitions are accordingly allowed.
(KULDIP SINGH) JUDGE 17.12.2014 sjks