Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Articel 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 in view of the Government Policy dated 04.02.1993 and policy dated 12.04.2002 and to consider the pre-mature release of the petitioner in view of the above- mentioned Government Policy.

2. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was prosecuted in FIR No.125, dated 20.10.2004, registered under Sections 302, 449, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Gohana, District Sonepat and he was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat under Sections 449, 302, 34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide order dated 22.11.2006. Thereafter, on completion of about 12 years of actual sentence, the petitioner applied for premature release, however, the same was considered and dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023 by learned Additional Chief Secretary to 1 of 11 Government, Haryana, Jail Department. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. He submits that case of the petitioner is covered by Haryana Government Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002 (hereinafter referred to 'Policy') (Annexure P-2), vide which the petitioner is to be released after completion of 10 years of actual sentence and 14 years of total sentence, whereas, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 12 years, 01 month & 02 days and total sentence of 14 years, 03 months & 13 days as on the date of filing of the application. He submits that the respondent-authorities have illegally rejected the application of premature release of the petitioner on the ground that the case of the petitioner for premature release is covered under Para 2

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. State counsel has submitted that the petitioner alongwith co-accused had brutally committed the murder of Jitender by causing repeated stab wounds on the chest, stomach and other parts of the body of the deceased with sharp edged knife like dagger (Chhura) on 19.10.2004 by inflicting 11 injuries, out of which 4 injuries are skin deep and rest are incised injuries. The motive behind the crime was that an altercation took place between the deceased and petitioner's side. The petitioner party having grudge against them, wanted to take revenge for that altercation, therefore, they committed the murder of Jitender. Hence, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide order dated 22.11.2006. State counsel has submitted that 11 injuries were inflicted by the petitioner and the co-accused upon the deceased.

State counsel, thus, submits that keeping in view the injuries, it is apparent that deceased Jitender was brutally murdered by the petitioner and his co-accused. State counsel further submits that the petitioner is not a law abiding person and remained involved in heinous crimes. State counsel submits that during parole, the petitioner remained absconding from 3 of 11 20.05.2008 to 25.09.2014 and during this period, two FIRs i.e. FIR No.142/2009 under Sections 307/120-B IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, at Police Station City Rohtak and FIR No.401 dated 25.09.2014, under Sections 174-A IPC, at Police Station City Sonepat were registered against him. State counsel has submitted that till the State Government commutes the sentence of a life convict through a written order under appropriate law, the petitioner cannot claim premature release as a matter of right. State counsel submits that it is only a concession given by the State Government after considering the behaviour of the convict inside the jail, gravity of offence, manner and circumstances under which the crime was committed etc. It is submitted that as per Section 433-A Cr.P.C., a life convict has to undergo at least 14 years of actual sentence, if he is convicted in a case in which death penalty is one of the sentence and the petitioner is convicted under Section 302 IPC, where the death sentence is one of the sentence prescribed under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the petitioner has to undergo minimum 14 years of actual sentence. State counsel has relied upon Maru Ram vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147; Swami Shardhanand @ Murli Manohar Mishra vs. State of Karnataka, (SC) 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 772; State of Haryana and others vs. Jagdish, AIR 2010 SC 1690. State counsel has further submitted that on completion of 12 years, 01 month & 02 days of actual sentence and 14 years, 03 months & 13 days of total sentence as on 13.03.2023, the case of the petitioner was placed before the State Level Committee, which was declined vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023, it was observed that the petitioner alongwith the co-accused brutally committed the murder of Jitender by causing repeated stab wounds 4 of 11 on chest, stomach and other parts of body with sharp edged knife like dagger (chhura) and thus, his case is squarely covered under para 2(a)(x) of the policy and the same would be re-considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence as per policy dated 12.04.2002. State counsel, thus, submits that there being no infirmity in the impugned order passed, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.