Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
Crl.Writ Petition No. 1075 of 2013 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of Decision: 4.2.2014
Crl.Writ Petition No. 1075 of 2013
Surjit Kaur
---Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
---Respondents
Crl.Writ Petition No.1076 of 2013
Harinder Singh
---Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
---Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
***
Present:- Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocate,
And Mr. S.K.Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner(s)
Mr. Amarinder Singh Klar, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State
***
REKHA MITTAL, J.
By way of this order, I shall dispose of Crl. Writ Petition No. 1075 of 2013 titled Surjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others" and Crl. Writ Petition No. 1076 of 2013 titled "Harinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.02.19 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.Writ Petition No. 1075 of 2013 -2- others" as these involve identical questions of law and facts for adjudication.
The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to release the petitioners pre-maturely on usual terms and conditions as per government instructions dated 8.7.1991.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") pertaining to FIR No.27 dated 29.4.1994 registered at Police Station Kurali, District Roopnagar and were awarded imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Roopnagar on 15.10.1997. The criminal appeal preferred by the petitioners in this Court was dismissed on 15.10.2001. Surjit Kaur petitioner has already undergone more than 16 years 07 months actual sentence and more than 24 years 07 months including remissions. Harinder Singh petitioner has also suffered custody for the period equal to that of Surjit Kaur, his mother. The District Magistrate recommended the cases of the petitioners for grant of pre-mature release in the light of government instructions dated 8.7.1991 (Annexure P-1) but the case of Surjit Kaur was rejected vide order dated Nil bearing endorsement No. G.I.G./J-4/5498 dated 25.3.2013 and the case of petitioner Harinder Singh was rejected vide Memo No.1/119/2012- 5G7/231 dated 27.2.2013. It is argued with vehemence that once the State government has formulated a policy for pre-mature release of life convicts and others and categorised the offences which fall in the category of heinous crime and the period of custody to be suffered by those convicts as actual imprisonment as well as imprisonment with remissions in order to Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.02.19 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.Writ Petition No. 1075 of 2013 -3- become entitle to the benefit under the policy, the respondent-State is obliged to honour and follow its policy in letter and spirit. It is further argued that the cases of the petitioners have been wrongly rejected with the finding that the meaning of life imprisonment is to remain in jail till last breath. It is further argued that the administrative authorities are not competent to sit in appeal over the findings of the Court and in the absence of any such finding by the trial Court or court in appeal that imprisonment for life awarded to the petitioners would mean jail till last breath, the impugned orders cannot be allowed to sustain and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
Counsel for the State of Punjab is fair enough to concede that both the petitioners have already completed the period of actual imprisonment as well imprisonment with remissions in compliance with policy instructions dated 8.7.1991. However, it is submitted that the petitioners have been held guilty for committing murder of a child aged 1½ year, therefore, the Chief Minister of Punjab has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioners for pre-mature release.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Order dated 19.2.2013 was passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Government of Punjab in regard to rejection of prayer of petitioner Harinder Singh and on the same lines, prayer of his mother Surjit Kaur for pre-mature release has been rejected in March 2013. A relevant extract from order dated 19.2.2013 reads thus:-
"Although the convict has completed the stipulated period for grant of premature release, but he has killed 1½ year's old female child and his case falls under the category of heinous Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.02.19 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.Writ Petition No. 1075 of 2013 -4- crime. So, he does not deserve any leniency. In this case, life imprisonment means that the life convict Harinder Singh remains in jail till his last breath. The case was sent to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for consideration.
According to the position explained above, the case for pre-mature release of life convict Harinder Singh s/o Bant Singh, Central Jail, Patiala, has been rejected by the Hon'ble Chief Minister after consideration, in exercise of powers under Sections 432, 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
A perusal of the above extract leaves no manner of doubt that Harinder Singh has already completed the period of imprisonment to become eligible for pre-mature release but his case has been rejected with the observation that the same falls in the category of heinous crime, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency and he is to remain in jail till his last breath.
Indisputably, the State government formulated policy dated 8.7.1991 in exercise of powers of the Government under Sections 432, 433, 433(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Para 1.1 of the policy (Annexure P-1), in a tabulated form, has categorized the convicts in five categories namely 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E'. The case of the petitioners, admittedly, falls in category 'B', thus, Surjit Kaur is entitled to be released from jail on completion of actual imprisonment of 08 years and imprisonment with remissions for a period of 12 years whereas period of actual imprisonment for Harinder Singh is 12 years and imprisonment with remissions to be 18 years. The aforesaid policy instructions also makes reference to heinous crimes with reference to Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.02.19 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.Writ Petition No. 1075 of 2013 -5- column 'B' of 1(1) as follows:-
(i) Offence under section 302 along with 347 of the IPC i.e. murder with wrongful confinement for extortion.
(ii) Section 302 with 375 i.e. murder with rape
(iii) Offence under Section of IPC i.e. dacoity with murder
(iv) Offence under Section 302 along with offences under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
(v) Offence under Section 302 along with offence under the Untouchability (offences)Act, 1955.
(vi) Offences under Section 302 where murder has been committed in connection with any dispute over dowry and this is indicated in the judgment of the trial Court.
(vii) Offence under Section 302 where the victim is a child under the age of 14 years.
(viii) Any conviction under Section 120-B of the IPC The case of the petitioners is covered under para (vii) as they have been convicted for murder of a child below 14 years of age.
As the State Government has taken a conscious decision in regard to pre-mature release of convicts awarded imprisonment for life for offence punishable with death sentence and further categorised offences which fall in the category of heinous crimes for the purpose of pre-mature release, in the absence of any contrary directions issued by the Court of law, the State government is obligated to honour its policy and implement the same in letter and spirit.
The orders passed in the case of the petitioners do not conform to the policy formulated by the Government, while invoking its Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.02.19 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.Writ Petition No. 1075 of 2013 -6- power under the statutory priovsions in the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as constitutional powers of the Governor of the State.
In this view of the matter, the impugned orders cannot be allowed to sustain and accordingly set aside. The State of Punjab is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the relevant policy framed by the Punjab Government. The State of Punjab shall re-consider the case of the petitioners and take a final decision in the matter within a period of three months. In case the respondent-State fails to take a final decision in the matter within three months, the petitioners shall be released on parole on their furnishing personal bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned. The petitioners shall give 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. After receipt of order from the State Government, Superintendent, District Jail, Roopnagar shall inform the petitioners accordingly. However, if the case of the petitioners is not accepted by the State of Punjab, the petitioners shall surrender before the jail authorities on receipt of necessary information in this regard.
Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
. ( Rekha Mittal )
Judge
4.2.2014
Paramjit
Saini Paramjit Kaur
2014.02.19 14:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh