ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M.JOSEPH, JJ. - (1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 09.08.2017 dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition No.507 of 2017 filed by the appellant. Appellant was convicted on 11.10.1993 in Sessions Trial No.9 of 1992 and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
(2.) The State Government after completion of 18 years of custody considered the case of the appellant for remission. By letter dated 15.02.2017, Government communicated that premature release of the appellant can be considered after completion of 26 years of sentence with all exemptions, subject to the condition of his good behaviour in the jail till his release. The State Government in the order dated 15.02.2017, which has been Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2019.03.15 brought on record as Annexure P-9, has referred to the 10:16:02 IST Reason: guidelines of the Government order dated 15.03.2010 as well as the Government letter dated 11.05.1992. Challenging the said order, a writ petition was filed by the appellant before the Bombay High Court which has been decided on 09.08.2017. The High Court while deciding the writ petition has relied on judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216. The High Court has affirmed the order of the State Government observing that the State Government while considering the case of the appellant has kept in view the guidelines, which were in force in the year 1992 guidelines, and also the guidelines for premature release under the 14 year Rule of Prisoners serving life sentence i.e. the guidelines of the year 2010. Finding no fault with the order of the State Government, the writ petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal contents that this Court in State of Haryana vs. Jagdish (supra), in paragraph 54, has laid down that in case a liberal policy from the date of consideration of the case of lifer for premature release, the convict should get benefit of that policy. It is further submitted that the State Government while rejecting the case of the appellant has relied on the Government order dated 15.03.2010 category 4(e) which was not applicable and the category which was applicable in the present case was category 3(b). Learned counsel further submitted that on the date of conviction the guidelines which were in force was dated 18.12.1987 under which in Clause 2(b) the period of imprisonment to be undergone for remission was 24 years. He submitted that in view of the subsequent guidelines dated 15.03.2010, which are more favourable, providing for consideration on completion of 22 years, the said guidelines ought to have been accepted. He further submitted that High Court committed error in referring the case of the appellant in wrong categorization i.e. 4(e). Learned counsel for the State submitted that the guidelines only permit consideration of the case of conviction, there is no fundamental right in a convict to claim remission as a right. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The guidelines which have been referred to in by the High Court for consideration are 15.03.2010, Annexure P/6, which provides for category 3(b) and category 4(e) which are relevant in the present case are extracted below: Category Sub- Categorisation of Crime Period of imprisonment to be No. category undergone including remissions subject to a minimum of 14 years of Actual Imprisonment including Set-off period
(3.) Murder arising out of Land dispute, family feuds, family prestige and superstition b. Crime committed as above 22 years with premeditation, either individually or by a gang.;