Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1075
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Anita Chaudhry
Crl. Writ Petition No. 1371 of 2014 (O&M)
Anil
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 03/06/2016}
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.K. Goyat, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Vibha Dhiman, AAG Haryana.
Headnote:Rape--Pre mature release--Appellant was convicted only for rape and his co-accused for murder--Case of appellant would fall under clause where under a convict is required to undergo 10 years actual sentence and not less than 14 year with remission.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376--Rape--Pre mature release--Haryana policy--Appellant was convicted only for rape and his co-accused for murder--Case of appellant would fall under Clause 2(b) and not 2(a) or (aa) where under a convict is required to undergo 10 years actual sentence and not less than the year with remission--State Committee while rejecting the claim of appellant has not observed that he would be threat to society and there was no adverse report against the petitioner as an inmate--Direction issued to reconsider the case--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.432.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.432--Premature Release--No convict has a fundamental right of remission of shortening of sentence, but the order of the State Government while rejecting the case of pre-mature release must have reflection about the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority that the premature release of a convict would be harmful for the society or that there are chances of reoccurrence of offence. (Para 12)
Ms. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- Through the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking his premature release from the jail in the light of Para 2(b) of the Pre-mature Release Policy 12.04.2002. The petitioner is also questioning the legality of rejection order dated 28.02.2014, Annexure P-3, whereby the relief of premature release has been declined.
2. The facts, as culled out from the petition, are being noticed first. Petitioner Anil and others were tried in FIR No. 264 dated 24.10.2001, registered under Sections 302, 376(g), 201 and 120-B, Police Station Sadar, Hansi. On conclusion of the trial, he was held guilty under Section 376(1)(g) IPC and was awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25000/- vide judgment and order dated 02.12.2003 and 06.12.2003 respectively. The actual period undergone by him is stated to be more than 14 years. The grouse of the petitioner is that despite his undergoing the requisite period as provided under Clause (b) of Para No.2 of the policy dated 12.04.2002, the State Government erred in declining the relief to him by misinterpreting the policy.
3. Upon notice, reply has been filed by the State of Haryana. It was admitted that the case of the petitioner was covered by policy dated 12.04.2002. The stand taken was that since the petitioner had not completed 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years’ sentence with remissions as prescribed in Clause 2(a)(xii) and (xiv) of the Policy, the State Level Committee had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for premature release.
4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as of the learned State counsel.
5. It is apparent from the reply filed by the State that there is no dispute that the case of the petitioner was considered as per the policy instructions dated 12.04.2002 which prevailed at the time when he was sentenced by the trial Court. However, the main objection of the State was that since he had not undergone the period of custody as stipulated under the Policy, his request was declined.
6. The State Government vide Notification dated 12.04.2002 revised the policy regarding pre-mature release of life convicts, which admittedly, was prevalent at that time. The relevant portion thereof reads as under:-
(aa)
Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment and convicts sentence
Their case may be considered after completion of 20 years actual and
who have been imprisoned for life having committed a heinous crime such as:-
25 years total sentence with remissions
(i)
Murder after rape repeated/ chainedrape/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 imprisoned for life having committed a heinous crime such as:-
Their cases may be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including under trial period provided of such sentence including remissions is not less than 20 years
(i)
Murder with wrongful confinement for extortion/robbery
(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 14Years
(viii)
Murder of a woman
(ix)
Murder after abduction or kidnapping
(x)
Murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces or burning/dragging the body as evident from judgment of the Court
(xi)
Persistent bad conduct in the prison
(xii)
