Karam Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

R.P. Nagrath, J.—By this common order, CRM-M-4448 of 2012, CRM-M-4449 of 2012 and CRM-M-4492 of 2012 being identical are being disposed of.

These petitions have been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned order dated 30.12.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by Secretary to Government of Haryana, Jails Department and further to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioners as per para 2(b) of pre-mature release policy dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P-2) after adding remissions granted from time to time and to release them.

The petitioners were convicted under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing murder of two persons. Balwant Singh-petitioner in CRM-M-4492 of 2012 was also convicted u/s 27 of the Arms Act. They were awarded life imprisonment for offence u/s 302 read with Section 149 IPC and fine apart from the award of compensation to be disbursed to the aggrieved family. The appeals preferred before this Court in CRA-D-738-DB of 2002 and CRA-D-885-DB of 2002 were also dismissed by this Court on 15.05.2008.

The facts of the case are extracted from CRM-M-4448 of 2012. The matter for pre-mature release of petitioners was considered by the State Authorities but the same was declined vide order dated 30.12.2011 (Annexure P-1), observing that the case of petitioners falls under Clause 2(a) of the Policy dated 12.04.2002 and have not undergone the requisite period of sentence. It was noted in the said order that the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 12 years and by including the remissions 14 years.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State counsel and have given my thoughtful consideration on the matter.

By now all the petitioners have undergone more than 14 years of imprisonment, the minimum period of imprisonment as provided in Section 433(A) Cr.P.C.

It would be seen that in the impugned order it has not specified as to under which sub-clauses of paragraph 2(a) of the policy the case of petitioners falls except the general statement that the case falls in paragraph 2(a) of the policy.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the State authorities have not taken into consideration the conduct of petitioners while undergoing sentence. It is also contended and rightly so, that the factum of the murder of two persons, was considered by the trial Court and it was not found to be covered within the rarest of rare cases. The illustrations of cases of murder exhibiting brutality have been stated in clause (x) of para 2(a) of the Policy (Annexure P-2), which should have been the guiding principle.

In view of the above, instant petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned order. The State Authorities are directed to reconsider the matter and determine under which specific sub-clause of para 2(a) or any other sub-paragraph of the policy the case of petitioners falls. The State Authorities would pass the order afresh expeditiously and preferably within the time as specified in the policy (Annexure P-2) to be counted from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.