HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU, J. - (1.) INDERJEET Singh petitioner was convicted for the commission of murder by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 14.3.1983. Since the day of his arrest in this case he is confined in jail. In July 19, 1989 the State Government considered the case of the petitioner for his pre- mature release as he alleged that he was a Juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. Vide Annexure P/4 Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, informed the Superintendent Central Jail, Ambala, that Inderjeet Singh was more than 18 years of age at the time of commission of the offence so he could not be considered as a juvenile but his case for premature release may be forwarded after he completed actual sentence of 8-1/2 years and 14 years sentence including remissions as per instructions issued by the Haryana Government on 28.9.1988. The case of the petitioner was again considered on the recommendation of State Level Committee's meeting held on 31.10.1991 and vide order Annexure P/5 dated 10.12.1991 the Government directed to reconsider his case after six months. The petitioner moved Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1797-M of 1992 and in compliance with the order passed by this Court in that petition on 26.5.1992 his case for pre-mature release was again considered and it was observed that the petitioner along with four other persons killed Babu Ram, Inderjit and Paramjit Kaur with gun and pistols and injured others. These gruesome murders were committed while the victims were sleeping in their own house. The petitioner had, thus, committed a heinous crime under para 2(a) of the Government Instructions dated 19.11.1991. Therefore, the State Level Committee recommended to reconsider the case of the petitioner on completion of 14 years' actual sentence including under trial period and after earning at least six years remissions. These recommendations were accepted by the Government and order Annexure P/3 was passed. In the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the said order of the State Government has been assailed.
(2.) THE petitioner alleged that instructions Annexure P/2 provide categories of various life convicts and his case did not fall under the category 2(a) of the instructions but the same was covered by para 2(b) of the same. There were numerous cases in the State of Haryana where life convicts who were found guilty for 3 or 4 murders were released in exercise of the powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and their cases were covered under para 2(b) of the instructions. In the return filed by the respondents it was contended that the petitioner had undergone actual sentence for 11 years 5 months and 13 days. In view of the gruesome murders of three persons including one innocent lady committed by the petitioner and others during night time the State Level Committee did not recommend the case of the petitioner for his premature release as he was guilty of committing a heinous crime and his case was to be considered after he served actual sentence of 14 years including under trial period.
(3.) THE solitary question for determination in this case is whether the petitioner committed heinous crime as set out in para No. 2(a) of the instructions Annexure P/2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that he along with four other persons murdered Babu Ram, Inderjit and Paramjit Kaur while they were sleeping in their house, on account of some land dispute. The State Level Committee described these murders as brutal, heinous and gruesome. In fact the very act of committing a murder constitute brutality of a high degree, but then a distinction has been made between what is described as heinous crime under the instructions Annexure P/2. Para 2(a) of these instructions enumerate the cases considered as heinous crimes which runs as follows: "(a) Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment and convicts who have been imprisoned, for life for having committed a heinous crime, such as, murder with wrongful confinement, for extortion/robbery, murder with rape, murder while undergoing life sentence, murder with dacoity, murder under T.D. Act, 1987, murder with Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, murder in connection with dowry, bride burning, murder of child under the age of 14 years, murder of handicapped or pregnant women or murder after abduction or kidnaping, murder on professional/hired basis, murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces or burning/dragging the body as evident from judgment of sentence, persistent bad conduct in the prison and those who cannot for some definite reasons be prematurely released without danger to public safety, or convicts who have been imprisoned for life under Section 120-B of IPC or life imprisonment a second time under N.D.P.S. Act, or life convicts who have been imprisoned for life second time under any offence." A perusal of the above list shows that the case of the petitioner is not covered under this clause. The learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana was also unable to point out any of these categories under which the case of the petitioner could be possibly covered. Since the case of the petitioner does not fall under Clause 2(a) of the Instructions Annexure P/2, the same will fall under the category given in para 2(b) according to which the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release is to be considered after completion of 10 years of actual sentence including under trial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 14 years. As per the return the petitioner has undergone the requisite sentence.;