Balbir Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India relates the quashment of order of the State Government dated 28.4.1993 Annexure P2 whereby the State Level Committee after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in which heinous, brutal and ghastly murder of his mother was committed by the petitioner had recommended that premature release of the petitioner be considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including undertrial period and after earning 6 years, remissions under para 2(a) of the government instructions dated 19.11.1991.

According to the petitioner, after his arrest on 25.9.1982 he was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide order of Sessions Judge, Karnal dated 8.6.83 for committing the murder of his mother. According to the petitioner, he had already undergone actual sentence of 11 years and 5 days from 8.6.1983 to 30.9.1993 including undertrial period of 8 months and 13 days from 25.9.1982 to 7.6.1983. The said period together with remissions earned for good conduct constitute a total sentence undergone to the extent of 17 years 2 months and 9 days. It was further pleaded that in supersession of earlier instructions dated 28.11.1987 the State Government of Haryana issued fresh instructions dated 28.9.88 to grant premature release to the convict/prisoners and in supersession of the latter instructions fresh instructions were issued vide letter dated 19.11.1991. It was further pleaded that the petitioner is fully entitled to be granted premature release and even though Superintendent Jail respondent No. 3 in compliance with the instructions dated 19.11.1991 duly recommended and forwarded the case of the petitioner for premature release vide his letter dated 25.9.1992 to the State Government, the latter on the basis of the recommendations of the State Level Committee declined the premature release of the petitioner and directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner again after completion of 14 years of actual sentence and six years remissions vide impugned order dated 28.4.1993. Copy of the said order was later on communicated to the petitioner.

The respondents in their reply pleaded that the petitioner had undergone total sentence of 11 years 1 month and 4 days including the period of sentence undergone after conviction to the extent of 10 years 4 months and 20 days. It was further pleaded that the case of grant of premature release of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the State Government on the recommendations of the State Level Committee according to the government instructions dated 19.11.1991 issued by the State of Haryana.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of the petitioner, it was mainly contended that the petitioner has not committed any heinous offence as contemplated under para 2(a) of the latest government instructions and that his case would be covered under para 2(b) of the government instructions issued by the State of Haryana on 19th November, 1991. It is true that in para 2(a) of the government instructions dated 19th November, 1991 referred to above, there is no specific mention that the heinous crime referred to in para 2(a) of the said instructions would include the case of murder of close relations including matricide. It is difficult to comprehend a more grave or a heinous offence than the murder of the mother committed by her own son. In the instant case, the murder of his own mother by the petitioner exhibits extreme brutality and depravity of character on the part of the petitioner. Thus for all intents and purposes the murder of mother by her own son would constitute a heinous offence as contemplated under para 2(a) of the government instructions dated 19.11.1991. The argument that the case of the petitioner would only be covered under para 2(b) and not under para 2(a) of the government instructions is hardly tenably in view of the circumstances of the present case.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the competent authority in directing the premature release of the petitioner only after he completes 14 years of actual sentence and earns 6 years remissions is perfectly legal and valid and there is no cogent reason to interfere with the same. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is here dismissed.