The interpretation of Clause 2(a)(x) of the Policy dated 12.04.2002, defining 'murder exhibiting brutality,' influenced the court's decision on the petitioners' eligibility for premature release.

Kuldip Singh, J.

Petitioners Avtar Singh, Balbir Singh and Fateh Singh were convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment of conviction dated 21.11.2006 and order of sentence dated 27.11.2016 (Annexure P-4) under Sections 148, 302, 326, 325 & 324 of Indian Penal Code along with seven other co-accused and sentenced to the maximum imprisonment for life.

2. According to the petitioners, they have undergone the requisite sentence of 10 years without remission and 14 years with remission and qualify to be considered for premature release under the Policy dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P-7). However the Government of Haryana vide impugned orders dated 03.04.2017 (Annexures P-1 to P-3) rejected their case on the ground that case of the petitioners is covered under Clause 2(a) (x) (murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting body in piece etc.) and not under Clause 2(b) which pertain to ordinary murders. Therefore, the petitioners are required to undergo and actual sentence of 14 years and with remission 20 years. The petitioners have challenged the said order being illegal.

3. The State in the reply while referring to Section 433 A of Cr.P.C. has taken the plea that the petitioners are required to undergo actual sentence of 14 years. It was further pleaded that the petitioners cannot claim the premature release as a matter of right unless the State Government commutes the sentence of life convict through a written order passed under Section 432/433 A Cr.P.C. The State Government has framed the premature release policy from time to time and the concession is to be considered on the basis of behavior of the convict inside the jail, gravity and the nature of the offence and circumstances under which crime was committed. It was stated that the matter regarding the petitioners was placed before the State Level Committee on 27.02.2017 and after going through the injuries, the Committee was of the view that the murder is exhibiting brutality and is covered under Clause 2(a)(x) of the Policy dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P7). As such, the petitioners have not undergone the requisite sentence. It was further stated that in the order of three other co-accused namely Kirpal Singh @ Pala, Raminder Singh @ Rama and Kulwant Singh of premature release, was recalled on the ground that murder exhibiting brutality is covered under Clause 2(a)(x) of the Policy dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P7). It is further observed that part of the right big toe of the deceased was chopped off with skin and muscles and adjoining second and third toe area was chopped off with skin and muscles. Haemotama was seen around of wounds which is covered under Clause 2(a)(x). The State Government has also produced the custody certificate which shows that the petitioners have undergone actual sentence of more little than 10 years and with remission more than 14 years in case of all the three petitioners.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully.

5. In order to see whether the case of the petitioners is covered under Clause 2(b) or Clause 2(a)(x) it is necessary to reproduce the said Clauses:-

“2(a)(x) Murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into piece of burning/dragging the body as evident from judgment of the Court.

2(b) Adult life convicts who have been imprisoned for life but who cases are not covered under (aa) and (a) above and who have committed crime which are not considered crime which are not considered heinous as mentioned in Clause (aa) & (a) above.

Their cases may be considered after completion of 10 years actual sentence including undertrial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not lesser than 14 years.”

6. Under Clause 2(a)(x), the crime is treated as heinous and the convict is required to undergo 14 years of actual sentence and with remission not less than 20 years. It is only after the said qualifying period their case to be considered. First of all,