J.S.SEKHON, J. - (1.) HEARD , Gurmej Singh petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life in a case of murder under order dated 9-8-1980 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. He was arrested in that case on 27-4-1980. It is not disputed that the petitioner had undergone actual sentence for more than 9 years 8 months and 15 days upto 19-1-1990 including the period of detention during trial and that he had earned remission for 7 years 7 months and 8 days, and that his conduct in the Jail has been satisfactory. The mercy petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 28-8-1989, Annexure PA. The petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 2993 of 1989 which was accepted by S. D. Bajaj, J. on 6-12-1989 vide order Annexure P-5 and a direction was issued to the State Government to reconsider the mercy petition in the light of the judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ petition No. 220 of 1988, decided on 16.1.1989 (Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab and another). The petitioner was directed to be released vide that order.
(2.) THE State Government again considered the mercy petition as per the directions of this Court and dismissed it vide order dated 3.8.1990, Annexure R-1. The petitioner in this Criminal Writ Petition challenges that order on the ground of arbitrariness. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In para 2 of order Annexure R-1, the grounds which were taken by the petitioner in the mercy petition are reproduced as under :- i) that he has undergone the requisite period of sentence of 8-1/2 years and with remission of 14 years and during this period, he has maintained good conduct. He has been allowed parole/furlough on eleven occasions and nobody in the entire locality raised any objection to his release; ii) that there was a complete absence of motive and pre-meditation and the murder was the result of grave and sudden provocation; iii) that his mother had already expired and his father was 80 years old, He had three brothers of whom, two namely Lakhbir Singh and Gurdev Singh are undergoing imprisonment for life alongwith him and the only brother who was outside the jail was looking after the families of the convict and his two brothers, who are inside the jail; and iv) that he was a patient of high blood pressure and cataract in both eyes." The perusal of para 3 of order Annexure R-1 reveals that the concerned authority had treated the mercy petition under the instructions issued on 21-8-1986 by the State Government regarding release of certain categories of prisoners on the first death anniversary of late Shri Harchand Singh Longowal although the petitioner was trying to make out a case for premature release under the instructions dated 12-12-1985, of the State Government, Annexure P-3. By treating the mercy petition as such concerned authority in para 4 had dealt with the same as under :- "So for as grounds of compassionate nature are concerned, it is not correct that there was complete absence of motive and pre-meditation. In fact, there had been civil and criminal cases between the parties even prior to the present occurrence. The Civil Litigation was pending between Ajit Singh PW and his brother Gurnam Singh deceased on one side and Gurmej Singh convict, Lakhbir Singh and Gurdev Singh on the other side. Even prior to the present occurrence, an attempt was made on the life of Hari Singh s/o Gurnam Singh deceased, Prem Singh grandson of Ajit Singh P.W. A case under Section 307 IPC had been registered against the accused party and even security proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. had been initiated. These proceedings were pending when the present occurrence took place. All this shows that the accused wanted to have their way at all costs and after an unsuccessful attempt on the life of Hari Singh and Prem Singh, they attacked and eliminated Gurnam Singh. When the enmity between the parties is so acute release cannot be ordered merely because the convict has undergone 8-1/2 years of actual, sentence. It is also not correct that there was no motive behind the crime or that the aggrieved party had given any provocation at the time when the occurrence took place. So far as the grounds of compassionate nature are concerned, admittedly, one of the brothers of the convict is outside the jail and be looks after the families of the convict and his other two brothers and his aged parents. Thus, there is an adequate support to the family."
(3.) A bare glance through the above referred observations of the concerned authority reveals that it has used the previous background between the rival parties culminating in the murder of Gurnam Singh as the sole ground in concluding that the enmity between the parties was of acute nature and no case for premature release is made out although the petitioner has undergone more than 9 years of actual sentence. It is not disputed that Balwinder Singh, coaccused of the petitioner had been released on mercy petition under Article 161 of the Constitution of India while Gurdev Singh, another co-accused of the petitioner had been released under instructions dated 21.8.1988 of the State Government. Although Balwinder Singh, co-accused of the petitioner had also similar motive for joining him in committing murder of the aforesaid Gurnam Singh, yet the State Government had used the same motive against the petitioner in rejecting the mercy petition which has resulted in arbitrariness especially when there is no indication from order Annexure R-I that the local authorities had opposed the premature release of the petitioner on the ground of endangering the maintenance of public order.;