MANGE RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANGE Ram and four other co-accused were arrested in a murder case by the police on 10th May, 1982. They were tried for the offence and ultimately convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, on 20-12-1982. Mange Ram who is at present undergoing imprisonment in District Jail, Rohtak, alleged that he had undergone actual sentence of more than 10 years had earned remissions for 6 years. His conduct and behaviour inside the jail remained good and he was never awarded any jail punishment. He enjoyed parole and furlough on various occasions and there was no untoward incident. His case for pre-mature release was favourably recommended by Superintendent Jail, Rohtak on 11th June, 1991 in view of the instructions issued by the Haryana Government on 28th September, 1988. The case was, however, not decided and then Criminal Misc. No. 5464-M of 1991 was filed wherein directions were given to the respondents to decide his case within three months. His case was referred by the Government to rate Level Committee and the Committee came to the conclusion that the case was to be determined under para 2 (b) of the new instructions issued by Haryana Government on 19-11-1991 which required a life convict to undergo atleast 10 years substantive sentence and 14 years sentence with remissions. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Government dated 31-3-1991 preferred Criminal Misc. No. 2698-M of 1992 which was decided on 22-7-1992 and the respondents were directed to decide his case for pre-mature release in accordance with the old instructions Annexure P/1 dated 28-9-1988 as he had undergone more than 8/1-2 years substantive sentence and more than 14 years sentence with remissions at the time of issuance of new instructions dated 12-11-1991 in compliance with this order his case for premature release was set up before the State Level Committee on 7-9-1992, but the Committee deferred his case till he completed the substantive sentence for 14 years on the ground that he had committed a heinous crime. The petitioner has assailed this order of the Government dated 7-9-1992 Annexure P/4 by filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 2261227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for his pre-mature release in the petition it was averred that the impugned order was unwarranted, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the decision of the Committee itself which was arrived at on 31-3-1992. The order was passed with malafide intention in order to harass him.

(2.) IN the reply filed by the State it was admitted that the petitioner had undergone more than 9 years actual sentence and 15 years 10 months and 11 days total sentence including remissions. It was contended that his case for pre-mature release was duly considered by the State Government in accordance with the instructions dated 28-9-1988 and it was decided that the case will be re-considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence by the petitioner as he was guilty of an offence which was so brutal that he did not deserve pre-mature release.

(3.) IT was urged on behalf of the petitioner that five persons were convicted for the murder of one Mulia aged 60 years by Sessions Judge, Rohtak on 20-12-1982 out of whom two were acquitted in appeal. The main accused who was armed with a Pharsa and to whom fatal injury was attributed had expired. The petitioner was armed with a Jaili and he caused only Jaili blow to the deceased on his chest using the weapon as a lathi. The other co-accused of the petitioner who also caused injuries to the deceased with a Jaili had been released by the State Government after his case for pre-mature release was considered. When the co-accused who was similarly situated was given benefit of pre-mature release, the impugned order vide which the case of the petitioner was rejected was discriminatory.