Sahab Singh And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others
!"!
#$ &% '()'!#*(#+#
, %%%
# ,"
- ,"."
'
,/##+
,"
%%% "0 #+ # 1$ 231%' '4'
'4'5% ! ""#$""% & '
(
( )) )) "*)+ ,-.
-/0
(
2 (
!
,3
-40 !
2'5 6 /"4 )) *7 )++# 4*.-$4*"$4.
'
& )7#* (
9
! 4*"
4.
'&
:(
( ". *% "**"
"% *% "**"
! (
((
1-
(
( &5-9-#*/-9 -"**"
1 & )# *% "*).
$
:
( '
&
,-40
-
",10 $ ( )*
(
(
( )4
(
(
") & '
1
;
&
(
(
1 (
1
( < =
(
1
!
)4
3 1
& )* *+ "*)+
)) )) "*)+
!
-
"*
=( !
( 1
, 0,30 )" *. "**" 1
"*
1 ". *% "**"
!
This fact is not disputed that the case of premature release of a life convict is governed by the policy of the Government prevailing on the date of judgment of conviction and not by the policy which existed on the date of consideration of his premature release. Undisputedly, at the time of conviction of petitioners i.e. ". *% "**" the prevailing policy for pre-mature release of convicts was Premature Release Policy dated 12.04.2002.
(
( ( -
- (aa) & !
!
(
"*
"/
(i) to (v)
& (a) #6!
7( (6 )
# !80,!"
# + , 9!
(6!#*
88!
+ ( !# ." ,!8
". ("$
(
(
"* (i) to (ix)
(x) 1.,+ , :(!)!
!#* ),.
9!
/ ". ( " .
!#* ) +/ !#
0!
" ,).,#!#*;+,**!#*
) +/ "
6!+ # , <.+*8 # ., (xi) to (xiv)
(b) +.9 9!
#6!
" 7( (6
)
# !80,!"
# + , 9!
).
7( "
" , #
, + .#+ ,=>#+=>) #+ 7( (6 88!
+ ,!8
7(! ( , #
#"!+ , + !# .""8 # # +!# 9."
=>?=>) ( !, "
"8/) #"!+ , +
,
# / ,"
.9"
#
# !# 9.+!#* .#+ ,
,!9 0 ,!
+ 0, 6!+ + (
9 0 ,!
+ ". ( "
#
#
!# 9.+!#* , 8!""!
#" !" #
9 ""
(# &/ ,"% (c) to (e)
)/ *# "*"* - ( ( ))
)*
( ( *7
)/ ! - 9 ( ))
)*
( (
*/
*4 *4 "*"* (
( )4
<
( "% *4 "**7 &-
11
1
=1( #+ ,'!#*(#+
,"-"'
,/##+
,">5 this Court observed that the petitioners had been found guilty for the commission of three murders. However, the imprisonment for life was imposed on each one of them by the trial court on
@ three counts. The said imprisonment awarded on three counts was ordered to run concurrently. So, no discrimination could be done on the basis of classification of two murders or three murders. There was no valid basis for the classification because Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides equality before law. It was also held that the provision of the policy is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 20 of the Constitution of India.
In the case in hand, the policy dated 12.04.2002 (P-3) is applicable and as per clause 2(a)(x) thereof, the petitioners had to undergo 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence including remissions on account of the fact that offences alleged to have been committed by them are covered under the said clause. Such distinction made in the policy is totally arbitrary and has certainly caused hardship to the petitioners who have already undergone more than )4
. Thus, it can safely be held that as per the judgment passed in Mahender Singh's case (supra), the offence committed by the petitioners does not fall under the heinous category for the reason that if a convict is involved in the murder of more than two persons, even then he is to be considered for pre-mature release and the case in hand the petitioners have been convicted for commission of offence of murder with brutality. Therefore, the petitioners in this case were required to be treated at par and they are held entitled to the same/similar treatment for the purpose of premature release. Consequently, the cases of the petitioners are liable to be considered under clause 2(b) of the policy, which prescribes 10 years of actual sentence and
14 years of total sentence including remissions. In the case in hand, the petitioners have already undergone more than )4
of total sentence including remissions, which could not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. Thus, the petitioners in this case are also required to be treated at par and are entitled to the same/similar treatment for the purpose of premature release. Further, as per clause 4(i) of the said policy, the overall conduct of the life convict during his confinement in jail with specific emphasis on his/her conduct for the last five years from the date of his/her eligibility for consideration of pre-mature release is to be seen. Admittedly, the petitioners have not punished for any jail offence during the last five years.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 11.11.2019 (P-4 & P-5) are quashed. The petitioners be set at liberty forthwith, if are not required in any other case. &% ='4'> 8B" > =($5 ?@ $ 6;
> 5 ?@ $ 6;