Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 January, 2011
Crl. W. P. No. 1419 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) Crl. W. P. No. 1419 of 2010
Date of decision: January 6, 2011
Harpal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
(2) Crl. W. P. No. 1420 of 2010
Date of decision: January 6, 2011
Hardip Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
(3) Crl. W. P. No. 1421 of 2010
Date of decision: January 6, 2011
Piara Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Mr. VK Jindal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana.
GURDEV SINGH, J.
Vide this order, I propose to decide the above referred criminal writ petitions, in which similar questions of law and facts are involved. Crl. W. P. No. 1419 of 2010 2 However, the facts are being taken from Crl. Writ Petition No. 1419 of 2010.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Harpal Singh, petitioner/prisoner, is for issuance of a writ for holding that he has completed requisite period of sentence for grant of premature release and that his further detention has become violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He pleaded therein that he, alongwith with 10 other accused, was tried in FIR 46 dated 29.6.1988 for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 511/149, 148 and 120B IPC, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, and was convicted for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 148 IPC and for the offence under Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ` 10,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, whereas for the offence under Section 148 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. He filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence, which was dismissed. He has undergone total sentence of 19 years 7 months and 21 days, the details of which are given in Para No.4 of the petition. In fact, he has definitely undergone more than 10 years actual sentence and more than 14 years sentence including remissions. During the entire period of sentence, he was not found guilty for any jail offence and he maintained good conduct throughout. At the time of his conviction, Policy Annexure P/2 was in force and as per that Policy, he was required to undergo only 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years sentence, including remissions. That Policy is applicable to him. According to the State, the Policy which was in force at the time of the consideration will Crl. W. P. No. 1419 of 2010 3 apply and not the Policy which was applicable at the time of his conviction. Inspite of the fact that it has been repeatedly held by this Court that the Policy with regard to premature release prevalent at the time of the conviction was to apply, still the State is not ready to consider his case for premature release under the said Policy. Therefore, a writ to that effect is liable to be issued.
Reply was submitted in form of the affidavit of the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, Jails Department. It has been stated therein that the case of the petitioner for premature release was placed before the State level committee comprising of Chief Minister, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary and Director General (Prison) for consideration, as per the Policy dated 4.2.1993, which was prevalent at the time of conviction of the petitioner. That Committee did not recommend premature release of the petitioner as it was found that he has undergone sentence of 15 years and 6 days, including undertrial period and remissions earned by him for 5 years 4 months and 29 days. The State Government agreed with the recommendation of the Committee and passed the order dated 17.8.2010 that the petitioner was not found eligible for premature release.
I have heard learned counsel for the both the sides.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the Policy dated 4.2.1993 (Annexure P/2), the petitioners are entitled to premature release as they have already completed more than 10 years of actual sentence, including the undertrial period. Their case does not fall under Clause 2 (a) of that Policy, which requires that the case for premature release is to be considered after completion of 14 years of actual Crl. W. P. No. 1419 of 2010 4 sentence. The offence committed by them does not fall under any of the categories mentioned in that clause. It cannot be said that the murder alleged to have been committed by them exhibited brutality. According to him, the brutality is to be seen before or at the time the murder was committed and not after the same was committed. In the present case, the prosecution did come out with the story that after commission of the murder the petitioners dragged the dead bodies in order to destroy the evidence but they were never convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Therefore, it cannot be said that the murder so committed exhibited brutality. He has tired to place reliance on the judgments of this court reported in 1994 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 142 (Balwan Singh Versus State of Haryana and Ors) and 1994 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 342 (Gurbax Singh Versus State of Haryana).
On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the case of the petitioners falls under Clause 2 (a) and, as such, they are not entitled to premature release before completion of the actual sentence of 14 years. It is very much clear from the judgment of the trial court that after committing the murder of Jaswinder Singh and Gurmit Singh their dead bodies were dragged by the petitioners and were taken to the house of Sangat Singh. The dragging of the dead bodies, after commission of murder itself exhibits brutality. Therefore, no such direction/writ for the premature release of the petitioners can be issued.
It was held in Gurbax Singh's case (supra) that if the State Government itself has chosen to classify murder in different ways for the purpose to premature release, it is bound by its instructions and they must be followed. It was also held therein that paragraphs 2 (a) deals with the situation where the murder is motivated by lust, greed or avarice, that are Crl. W. P. No. 1419 of 2010 5 the cases of human instincts, or where it has been exceptionally brutal in its execution.
In Balwan Singh's case (supra), it was held that the case of the petitioner, who was simply held guilty under Section 302/34 IPC is not covered by the definition of heinous crime, as referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of the Policy/Instructions.
The relevant portion of Clause/Paragraph 2 (a) of the Policy (Annexure P/2) is re-produced below.
"...murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces, or burning/dragging the body as is evident from judgment of sentence..."
A bare reading of this paragraph makes it clear that brutality can be exhibited either before or after the commission of the murder. The body can be cut into pieces only after murder and similarly the body can be burnt or dragged after the murder. The judgment of the trial court is to the effect that the petitioners caused injuries on the different parts of the persons of Jaswinder Singh and Gurmit Singh and after causing their death dragged the dead bodies and took those to the house of Sangat Singh. This dragging of the dead bodies exhibits brutality as envisaged in paragraph 2
(a), referred to above. The case of the petitioners fall under that paragraph and, as such, they are not entitled to premature release having not completed actual sentence of 14 years.
The criminal writ petitions are dismissed accordingly.
January 6 , 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE