Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shakti Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 January, 2020
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRWP-352-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 13.1.2020
Shakti Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate with
Ms. Neha Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of impugned order dated 6.6.2016 (Annexure P-5) whereby his case for premature release has been declined.
2. The petitioner is undergoing sentence as imposed vide judgment dated 17.5.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. The sentence, as imposed by the Court below is as follows:
Offence under Sentence awarded Fine imposed Section 120-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment for `7500/- in default of life payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for 6 months 364-A IPC r.w. Rigorous imprisonment for `10,000/- in default of 120-B IPC life payment of fine rigorous 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 10:10:23 :::
-2- CRWP-352-2020 (O&M) imprisonment for 9 months 302 IPC r.w. Rigorous imprisonment for `15,000/- in default of 120-B IPC life payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for 1 year 201 IPC r.w. Rigorous imprisonment for a `5000/- in default of 120-B IPC period of 5 years payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for 4 months
3. The case of the petitioner was considered for his premature release but was declined vide order dated 6.6.2016 (Annexure P-5). The relevant extract from the impugned order reads as follows:
"After agreeing with the recommendations of the State Level Committee that the his case of convict Shakti falls under Para 2(aa)(ii) of the above said policy hence he is not eligible for premature release at present. As per this para he is required to undergo 20 years of actual sentence including undertrial period, provided that the total period of such sentence including remission is not less than 25 years."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that his case is in fact covered by para 2 (a) (ix), as per which a convict who has been convicted for murder after abduction or kidnapping the victim is to be considered for his premature release upon completion of 14 years of actual sentence including undertrial period provided that the total period of such sentence includes remissions is not less than 20 years.
5. Learned State counsel has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely follows under para 2 (aa) (ii) as it is a case where the victim 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 10:10:24 :::
-3- CRWP-352-2020 (O&M) had been abducted with an intention of extracting ransom and was later on killed.
6. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and have perused the relevant policy attracted to the case of the petitioner i.e. policy dated 12.4.2002 (Annexure P-6). The relevant extract of which reads as follows:
"2. In supersession of Haryana Govt. memo no.36/135/91- 1JJ(II) dated 08.08.2000 which was further substituted bearing same no. and date on 23.02.2001, the Govt. have decided to revise the policy regarding, premature release of life convicts as follows :-
(aa) Convicts whose death sentence Their cases may be has been commuted to life considered after imprisonment and convicts who completion of 20 yrs.
have been imprisoned for life actual sentence and 25 having committed a heinous years total sentence crime such as :- with remissions.
(i) Murder after rape
repeated/chained rape/
unnatural offences
(ii) Murder with intention
for the ransom.
(iii) Murder of more than two
persons.
(iv) Persons convicted for
second time for murder
(v) Sedition with murder.
(a) Convicts who have been Their cases may be
imprisoned for life having considered after
committed a henious crime completion of 14
such as:- years actual sentence
including undertrial
period provided that
the total period of
such sentence
includes remission is
not less than 20 years.
(i) Murder with wrongful
confinement for
extortion/robbery.
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 10:10:24 :::
-4- CRWP-352-2020 (O&M)
(ii) Murder while undergoing
life sentence.
(iii) Murder with dacoity.
(iv) Murder with offence under
TADA Act, 1987.
(v) Murder with
untouchability (Offences)
Act, 1955
(vi) Murder in connection with
dowry.
(vii) Murder of a child under
the age of 14 years.
(viii) Murder of a woman.
(ix) Murder after abduction
of kidnapping.
(x) to xxx xxx xxx
(xiv) (emphasis supplied)
7. A perusal of judgment dated 17.5.2004 (Annexure P-1) shows that the Trial Court has returned findings in unambiguous terms that the victim had been abducted for the purpose of ransom. The relevant extract from concluding paragraph of said judgment reads as follows:
"125. Thus, keeping in view my above discussion, it is established from the evidence on record by the prosecution that deceased Girish Kumar was abducted for ransom as a result of criminal conspiracy between accused persons namely Shakti Singh, Rajesh, Badshah, Mohsin, Babu Ali, Kartar Singh. Later on accused Ram Parshad, Gulab Singh and Shamraj also joined to this conspiracy. It is also established that accused Babu Ali, Shakti Singh, Rajesh, Mohsin, Badshah, Gulab Singh, Ram Parshad and Suraj (PO) conspired/planned to kill Girish Kumar and was ultimately murdered by firing shot by Badshah and later on his body was set on fire in order to destroy the evidence........................." (emphasis supplied) 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 10:10:24 :::
-5- CRWP-352-2020 (O&M)
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it is para 2(aa)(ii) which would be attracted and not para 2(a) (ix).
9. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court does not find any infirmity in order dated 6.6.2016 (Annexure P-5) and the same is upheld. The petition, as such, is dismissed.
10. However, it is ordered that case of the petitioner shall be considered for his premature release as and when he becomes eligible, in accordance with policy dated 12.4.2002 (Annexure P-6). In case any of his representation is pending, the same shall also be disposed of in accordance with law.
January 13, 2020 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
mohan JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 10:10:24 :::