Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2160
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
S. MANIKUMAR, V.S. RAVI, JJ.
Selvam @ Selvaraj
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu & Others
Habeas Corpus Petition (MD). No. 494 of 2014
Decided On: 01-08-2014
For the Petitioner:R. Alagumani, Advocate.
For the Respondents: C. Mayil Vahana Rajendran, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving wilfulness in committing an act and the prohibition against double punishment for the same offence.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Premature Release - G.O.Ms.No.1155/Home (Pri IV) Department/2009, G.O.Ms.No.1762, Home (Prison VI) Department, dated 20th July 1987 - The judgment discusses the application of G.O.Ms.No.1155/Home (Pri IV) Department/2009, G.O.Ms.No.1762, Home (Prison VI) Department, dated 20th July 1987, and the relevant provisions of the Prisons Act, 1894, and Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, in the context of premature release of a life convict prisoner. The court analyzes the behavior of the prisoner, the acquittal under Section 224 IPC, and the application of Rule 297(62) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, in determining the prisoner's eligibility for premature release. The judgment emphasizes the requirement of proving wilfulness in committing an act and the prohibition against double punishment for the same offence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a life convict prisoner, sought premature release under G.O.Ms.No.1155/Home (Pri IV) Department/2009, dated 11.09.2008. The petitioner had completed more than 7 years of imprisonment and was acquitted in a case registered under Section 224 IPC. However, the Superintendent of Prison recorded the petitioner's behavior as 'Not Satisfactory' based on an accusation of overstayal of leave, which had failed in the court of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquittal of the petitioner under Section 224 IPC meant that there was no wilful commission of an act constituting a prison offence. The court held that the Superintendent of Prison could not record the behavior of the prisoner as 'Not Satisfactory' based on the failed accusation of overstayal. The court also emphasized that there cannot be two punishments for the same offence, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Ghaseeta Ram.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the determination of the petitioner's eligibility for premature release under G.O.Ms.No.1155/Home (Pri IV) Department/2009, the application of Rule 297(62) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, and the prohibition against double punishment for the same offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1155/Home (Pri IV) Department/2009, G.O.Ms.No.1762, Home (Prison VI) Department, dated 20th July 1987, and the Prisons Act, 1894, and Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983. The court emphasized the requirement of proving wilfulness in committing an act and the prohibition against double punishment for the same offence.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to apply the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.1155/Home (Pri IV) Department/2009 to the case of the petitioner and release him forthwith if his presence was not required in connection with any other case.
S. Manikumar, J.
1. Seeking production of the petitioner herein, before this Court and to set him at liberty, by extending the benefits of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.1155/Home (Pri IV) Department/2009 dated 11.09.2008, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.
2. According to the petitioner, he was charge sheeted in Crime No.133 of 1995 by the Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam North Police Station. By judgment, dated 05.10.1998, in S.C.No.15 of 1997, on the file of Sessions Court, Trichy, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He filed an appeal in C.A.No.369 of 1999. Pending appeal, he was released on bail. However, the appeal came to be dismissed on 14.01.2003, confirming the sentence. He was re-admitted to Prison.
3. On the occasion of Perarignar Anna Centenary Birth Anniversary, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.1155, Home (PRI.IV) Department, dated 11.09.2008, for premature release of life convict prisoners, on 15.09.2008, subject to the conditions, inter alia, (i) who have completed seven years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2008; (ii) who are aged 60 years and above and have completed five years of actual imprisonment on 15.09.2008; and (3) subject to the satisfaction of the other conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.1762, dated 20.07.1987.
4. According to the petitioner, the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai, 2nd respondent, has furnished a list of 1340 life prisoners, who have completed seven years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2008, including three life convict prisoners of Tamil Nadu, undergoing their sentence in the prisons of Kerala State, on reciprocal basis and another list of 66 life convicts, who are aged 60 years and above and have completed five years of actual imprisonment as on 15.09.2008, eligible for premature release. He has also recommended for premature release of these 1406 life convicts on 15.09.2008 and only one prisoner was not eligible for premature under Article 161 of Constitution of India.
5. According to the petitioner, he had completed more than 7 years of imprisonment, but his name was not included in the list, without any reason. When he enquired about the same, he was informed that a case under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered for overstayal. As per G.O.Ms.No.1762, dated 20.07.1987, prisoners convicted under Section 224 IPC., are not eligible for the concession of premature release. According to the petitioner, he was acquitted in the case registered under Section 224 IPC. He was under confinement for over 18 years. According to him, placing reliance on a decision of this Court in H.C.P.No.627 of 2013, wherein, it has been held that for extension of the benefit of the Government Order, overstayal should not be taken into consideration, he has made several representations. Upon failure to consider the same and left with no other alternative, he filed this petition, for the relief, as stated supra.
6. From the records and inviting the attention of this Court to the contents of the Government Order, relied on, Mr.C.Mayilvaghana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as per G.O.(MS) No.1762, Home (Prison IV) Department, Dated 20.07.1987, in Para No.(i), prisoners convicted of rape, forgery, decoity, terrorist crimes, offences against the state and prisoners sentenced under sections 224, 376, 396, to 400, 402, 467, 471, 472, 474, 489 A, 489 B and 489 D of Indian Penal Code should not be considered for premature release.
7. By referring to the Conviction Certificate, learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner, Life Convict No.96142, was released on emergency leave for 3 days on 23.07.2003, from the Central Prison. But the prisoner did not return to the prison, on the due date, i.e., 27.03.2003, on the expiry of the above leave period granted to him. Later, he was arrested by Kumbakonam
