JUDGMENT

1. At the time of filing of the writ application, petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the decision of the State Remission Board dated 21.06.2019 so far it relates to the petitioner, whereby and where under the State Remission Board has been pleased to reject the proposal of the petitioner for his pre-mature release interalia on the ground that under clause (iv) (ka) of Notification No. 3106 dated 10.12.2002, the petitioner is not eligible for grant of pre-mature release as also there is unfavourable opinion of the Presiding Judge.

(II) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for premature release and grant him on the ground that now the petitioner has already completed more than 21 years of sentence with remission and more than 18 years of physical incarceration, taking into consideration that the case of the petitioner has been covered under 1984 Policy prevailing at the relevant time of his conviction since the petitioner is the convict of 2006 and almost all the prescribed Authorities recommended for his pre-mature release except Presiding Judge.

(III) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case."

Brief facts of the case

2. The writ petitioner faced charges for the offence under Section 376 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution story this petitioner being the husband of the deceased forced himself upon the informant (since deceased), had sexual intercourse with her in a banana field and after sexually assaulting her with the help of the co-accused, he pressed her hands and mouth and the co-accused also assaulted her sexually. Thereafter the co-accused tied her hand with a fine plastic rope and closed her mouth with his hands, the petitioner took out a knife and gave three blows on her neck with an intention to kill her. As a result the neck started to bleed profusely, wherefter both the accused threw her into the river. The informant somehow managed to come of the river and in injured condition she went running to the railway crossing where she explained the entire story to the lady owner of the toddy shop. She was taken to the local doctor, the local chowkidar informed the police station. The informant disclosed the reason behind the occurrence being that her husband was in love affair with a girl at Delhi to which she had objected.

3. The learned trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 302 and Section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court awarded death sentence for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and a sentence of transportation of life with rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376/34 of I.P.C. The death sentence was, however, subject to confirmation by the Hon'ble High Court in accordance with Section 366 Cr.P.C.

4. The Death Reference No. 5 of 2006 together with Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2006 were heard by a Hon'ble Division of this Court and vide judgment dated 8th of January, 2008 the Hon'ble Division Bench refused to interfere with the punishment of death sentence granted to the appellant.

5. The matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2009 the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find any fault with the conviction of the appellant. As regards the death sentence awarded to the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that the appellant was a young man of 30 years at the time of the incident and there was a possibility that he may at some stage of his life have a reformation in his character. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was informed that the petitioner who was appellant before the Court had a younger daughter from his deceased wife and she was being looked after by her maternal grandmo