Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rawail Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 2 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002CRILJ3075
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
ORDER M.L. Singhal, J.
1. Through this criminal misc, petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Rawail Singh Petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the State of Punjab to release him prematurely in view of instructions (Annexure P-1) issued on 13-4-2001 by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred by Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 161 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that Rawail Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by Sessions Judge, Patlala in case FIR No. 54 dated 22-2-1990 of Police Station Kotwali, Patiala on 11-5-1994. He has completed more than 5 years 3 months in jail. He has remained in jail from 23-2-1990 to 31-7-1990 and then from 10-9-1990 to 10-11-1990, then from 11-5-1994 to 23-8-1994 and then onwards 21-5-1997 to date. On the occasion of Bicentenary Celebrations of the Coronation of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, State of Punjab issued one time instructions (Annexure P-1) for premature release of prisoners who are more than 70 years old and have undergone actual sentence for more than 4 years. He was 80 years old at the time of conviction as recorded in the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. In the ration card Annexure P-2 he was shown as 76 years old in 1990. He is now more than 87 years old. He was entitled to special remission allowed to the prisoners to commemorate the Bicentenary Celebrations of the Coronation of Maharaja Ranjit Singh by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of powers vesting in him under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Article 161 of the Constitution of India. He was entitled to be released forth with as on 13-4-2001, he had undergone actual sentence for more than 4 years and also he was more than 70 years old.
2. Respondents-State of Punjab opposed this prayer of the petitioner. It was alleged that his case for premature release was considered under the Punjab Government policy instruction dated 8-7-1991 and as per one time instructions dated 12-8-1998 and 8-4-1999. As per one time instructions dated 12-8-1998 and 8-4-1999, a convict who is guilty of double murder is not entitled to any benefit of premature release. As per instructions dated 8-7-1991, a life convict who has committed double murder has to undergo 12 years actual sentence before being eligible for premature release. His case for premature release was considered and rejected by the Government and he was informed of his decision by the Government.
3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to premature release under the instructions Annexure P-1, issued by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of powers vesting in him under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 161 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the commission of double murder cannot be viewed as a "heinous crime" and the petitioner will be entitled to premature release even if he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the commission of double murder. In support of this submission, he has drawn my attention to Roop Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 (2) Rec Cri R 132 (Punj and Har) where it was held that a conviction for more than one murder does not come within the ambit of heinous crime. Learned counsel also drew my attention to Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 (4) Rec Cri R 506 (Punj and Har) where it was held that where the convict did not fall in the category of "intractably savage delinquent, he is entitled to claim that his case for premature release be considered under the instructions prevailing at the relevant time.
4. In Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147 : 1980 Cri LJ , Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that State Government can decline a case of premature release if it comes to the conclusion that action on the part of the convict fell in the category of intractably savage delinquent.
5. It was submitted that Government cannot refuse to give effect to the instructions governing premature release of a convict even if he is convict of "double murder". He drew my attention to Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 (2) Rec Cri R 220 (Punj and Har) where it was held that the State cannot go beyond the policy and invent special cause for rejection.
6. The benefit of the instructions Annexure P-1 issued by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers vesting in him under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 161 of the Constitution of India to commemorate the Bioentenary celebrations of the Coronation of Maharaja Ranjit Singh will not be available to the following categories of prisoners:
(i) to (v) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(vi) If the prisoner is involved in ghastly murders/double murder involving extreme brutality beastiality in which the prisoner has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life or if he is involved in the crime connected with terrorism in the State.
(vii) to (viii) xxx xxx xxx xxx
7. In this case, Rawail Singh and his sons Amarjit Singh, Preet Mohinder Singh, Jasbir Singh alias Kala, Gurvinder Singh alias Timma and Surinder Singh alias Bittu have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murders of Inderjit Singh and Tarlochan Singh.
8. In this case, Rawail Singh and his five sons variously armed pounced upon Tarlochan Singh, Inderjit Singh and 'Harminder Singh sons of Man Singh, Man Singh and Rawail Singh are not strangers. They are real brothers. Rawail Singh and his sons wiped out two of the sons of Man Singh namely Tarlochan Singh and Inderjit Singh. They caused multiple injuries to Harminder Singh the other son of Man Singh who fortunately survived the on-slaught. Benefit of these instructions has been ex-presshtexcluded from those who are found guilty of ghastly murder/double murder involving extreme brutality and beastiality. It was a double murder committed by Rawail Singh and his sons.
9. Rawail Singh and his sons extinguished the flame of life in Tarlochan Singh and Inderjit Singh sons of Man Singh - real brother of Rawail Singh and grievous injury to Harminder Singh another son of Man Singh. Motive was also not so serious. If motive were so serious, it could have been said that they could not contain venom in them and they had to be murdered. Rawail Singh and his sons are benefit of human being in them. They are more or less brutes, who acted in so savage a manner that even people living in primitive age would not do it, Dictionary meaning of ghastly is "death like", "hideous" and "deplorable". Nothing could be more brutal, beastly and heinous than the commission of the murder of two young sons of the persons, who is the real brother of the one accused and taya or chacha of the other accused and driving his another son almost to death, what is heinous, or brutal or involves beastiality has to be interpreted in view of the expectations of the society. We have to look to the pulse of the society while interpreting these words. The act would be viewed as heinous if it shocks the conscience of a person. Government in its wisdom did not think it proper to grant the benefit of instructions Annexure P-1 which are one time instructions permitting to remit some portion of the un-expired sentence of lifers and to grant special remissions to prisoners who have been convicted by the civil Courts of Criminal jurisdiction in the State of Punjab, but with certain exceptions. One of the exceptions is that a person who is convicted of ghastly murder/double murder involving extreme bru-tality/beastiality is not entitled to one benefit of these instructions. Should the Court interfere and say that the commission of "double murder" should not be construed as a bar so far as the benefit of these instructions is concerned, when the commission of "double murder has been viewed as a ghastly act, shocking the conscience of a civilised person.
10. In this case, brutality and beastiality was involved because the whole of the mortal coil of each of them was lynched. It shows extreme depravity and lack of compassion in them.
11. For the reasons given above, this criminal Misc. Petition fails and is dismissed.