- (1.) Major Singh, detenu, is undergoing imprisonment for life and some other short sentences under the orders dated 7-8-1981 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala. Admittedly, he has undergone 9 years, 5 months and 23 days of actual imprisonment including the period of detention besides earning remissions to the tune of 6 years 10 months and 15 days. His conduct in the Jail has been good throughout. The mercy petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the State Government on 9-5-1999 vide order, copy Annexure P-2, by observing in paras No. 3 and 4 as under "The mercy petition of the detenu has been considered by the Government keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and other factors relevant to such consideration. The facts of the case show that Major Singh detenu though married used to sit in front of the house of the complainant party with immoral desires. Gulzar Singh deceased had protested against this behaviour of the detenu and had asked him to desist from sitting on the platform in front of house. This shows that the convict did not maintain good conduct in the village. It was also reported that there had been tension between the parties whenever the convict had been released on parole/furlough. There is thus strong apprehension of breach of peace in case the balance of sentence of life imprisonment is remitted and consequently detenu is released prematurely. Remissions cannot, therefore, be allowed merely because the convict has undergone 8-1/2 years of actual sentence and with remissions of 14 years. It is also not correct that there is none to look after the aged father and the family of the convict. Gurbaj Singh brother of Major Singh convict who was also tried along with, him in this case, had been acquitted at the trial. He was then 20 years old and by now he should be around 30 years. He can well look after the family affairs. In view of the above circumstances, it is not a fit case where prerogative of mercy may be exercised in favour of the convict. The mercy petition is accordingly rejected. These orders may be communicated to the convict through the Superintendent of Jail concerned."
(2.) A bare glance through the above said order reveals that the motive for the commission of the murder resulting in imposing imprisonment for life was considered by the concerned authority. In a way it can be well said that the concerned authority took the above referred motive of immoral design as an aggravating circumstance. The mental state of a prisoner can only be inferred from his behaviour or conduct. There is nothing on the file that Major Singh convict had actually passed some indecent remarks or avertures to any female. On the other hand, the murder of Gulzar Singh was committed by him when the latter protested regarding his sitting in front of the house of the complainant party. Thus it cannot be said that Major Singh had committed the murder in a cruel or revolting manner or that he was a man of deprayed character especially When there is nothing on the file that during the period he remained on parole, he had tried to misbehave with any female of his village.
(3.) The other ground on which the mercy petition was rejected as per the above referred order is that there was tension between the parties whenever the convict was released on parole. This allegation is vague as there is no specific report in this regard or the file or relied upon in the order rejecting the mercy petition. Consequently, such like vague report is irrelevant for concluding that there is reasonable apprehension of the breach of peace if Major Singh is released prematurely. On the other hand, a detenu is required to execute certain bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour and in case he commits any default of these undertakings, he is liable to be rearrested for undergoing the remaining period of sentence.;