Resham Singh vs State of Punjab

G. S. Chahal, J.

Resham Singh, petitioner is a life convict. On the date of making this Criminal miscellaneous, he had undergone 10 years 8 months and 26 days and earned remissions for 7 years 2 months. He moved a mercy petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, seeking his premature release which was rejected by the Govt. Through this criminal miscellaneous, he invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for securing his premature release.

Previous mercy petition of the petitioner was rejected by the Govt. vide order dated 28.8.89. At that time, record of some other person, named Resham Singh was taken into account and his two previous jail convictions were considered. The petitioner then moved this Court and vide judgment dated 19.4.90, a direction was issued that the mercy petition of the petitioner be reconsidered within three months. It was then considered and again rejected. The grounds mentioned are as under :

I have considered the facts of the case. It is quite clear that it is not a case of sudden provocation. In fact, it was a cool and calculated murder to eliminate Kartar Kaur wife of the convict who had strongly protested against the nefarious activities of her husband Resham Singh. Even the trial Court had gone on record to say that "I see no reason to doubt the prosecution version that the accused was a drunkard and that he used to bring undesirable woman to his house and on that account, the deceased used to dissuade him "This also indicates that even prior to the occurrence, the convict did not carry good reputation in the village. Even the respectables of the village bad said so when verification had been carried out in August, 1989. They had said that Resham Singh was a drunkard and was of quarrelsome nature. Though his eldest son was a complainant in this case and may have bothered to make any efforts to get the convict released on parole and furlough, his second son who is also married and an adult member has done nothing for the release of the convict on parole and furlough. This shows that the convict does not carry good reputation in the village. For this reason, his premature release cannot be allowed merely because he has undergone more than 8 years 6 months of actual sentence. So far as the grounds for compassionate nature are concerned, there is not much from in them. Even prior to the present occurrence he had not shouldered any responsibility of his family in a proper manner. Even otherwise, the convict has three sons of whom two ace married and his second son Chand Singh has been looking after his younger son and youngest daughter."

Is the return, it has been stated that the respectables of the village were not prepared to take responsibility and even his son and daughterinlaw oppose his release. His son Bikkar Singh, had at the time of examination on 10.5.90, said that about two months earlier he had gone to have an interview with his father and at that time, his father started threatening him

It was a case of murder within the family and the petitioner had murdered, his own wife. One of his sons had appeared as a witness against him. During this entire period, the relatives have not arranged for his release or furlough for the obvious reason that they are scared of him. In the background of this case and the circumstances leading to petitioner''s murdering his wife, the State Govt. has rightly disposed of his mercy petition. Inquiry was made in the village. Lambardar Gurbax Singh and ExSarpanch Banta Singh, Bikkar Singh son of the petitioner and his wife Smt. Jaswinder Kaur (daughterinlaw of the petitioner) have also opposed his release. The respondentauthorities had, thus, considered all the attending circumstances and reached the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to premature release. His mercy petition had been correctly rejected and no case is made out for ordering his premature release in this criminal miscellaneous which is hereby dismissed.

It is, however, recommended that the premature release case of the petitioner may be reconsidered after a period of one year from the date of the order, rejecting his mercy petition.

JUDGMENT accordingly.