BALWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried for the offence of murder by learned Sessions Judge, Hissar, along with other co-accused and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 18.5.1982. At present he is confined in Central Jail, Bhatinda. He alleged that at the time of commission of the offence he was less than 18 years of age. After his arrest on 15.9.1981 he remained continuously confined behind the bars and he had undergone more than 11 years 6 months of actual sentence and had earned remissions exceedings 6 years. According to the latest instructions issued by the State of Haryana on 19.11.1991 a juvenile offender was entitled to pre-mature release after he had undergone 8 years' actual sentence and 10 years sentence including remissions. The petitioner fulfilled requisite conditions for the grant of pre-mature release but this benefit was withheld from him arbitrarily. His case for pre-mature release was considered by the State Government but was rejected vide order Annexure P/4 on the ground that he had committed offence in brutal and ghastly manner and the offence was heinous. Thus, he was required to undergo 14 years' actual sentence for carning the benefit of pre-mature release. The petitioner alleged that the impugned order was passed in an arbitrary manner and the offence committed by him did not fall within the definition of heinous offence as contained in the instructions dated 19.11.1991. His case was covered by para 2(b) of the said instructions and it did not fall under para 2(a). In fact he was below 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence and as such the ground of heinousness of offence was not attracted at all. In the judgment Annexure P/1 his age was recorded as 16-17 years. In any case he was not required to undergo more than 10 years sentence including remissions.

(2.) IN the return filed by the respondents it was maintained that the petitioner along with four other persons murdered Chanan Singh with Gandasis, Takwa and Dhangi and the State Level Committee after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case under which this heinous and brutal murder was committed after pre-planning, recommended that pre-mature release case of the petitioner may be reconsidered after completion of 14 years' actual sentence. This fact was, however, admitted that the petitioner had undergone 11 years 8 months 13 days actual sentence and 17 years 20 days sentence including remissions.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the time of commission of the offence the petitioner was less than 18 years of age. He was a juvenile life convict and his case for pre-mature release was to be decided as per instructions contained in para 2(c) of Annexure P/3. According to these instructions juvenile life convict below the age of 18 years at the time of commission of offence became eligible for consideration for pre-mature release after completion of 8 years' actual sentence including undertrial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions was not less than 10 years. The learned counsel contended that in the judgment Annexure P/1 the age of the petitioner was given as 18 years and after conviction the petitioner remained in borstal jail till 6.6.1986. Except copy of the judgment there is nothing on record to prove the age of the petitioner at the time of commission of the offence. No document was produced to show that the petitioner ever remained admitted in borstal jail. He was tried along with his co-accused and the question that he was a juvenile convict was never raised prior to the filing of the present petition. Without any definite proof regarding the age of the petitioner on the day of incident it cannot be determined at this stage if he was a juvenile offender and benefit of the instructions contained in para 2(c) of Annexure P/3 cannot be awarded to him.