N.C. Jain, J. - (1.) THE facts leading to the filing of the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ for habeas corpus for releasing the Petitioner prematurely lie in a very narrow compass. The Petitioner was tried for the offence of! murdering as many as four persons for which he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on August 20, 1977. He has actually spent in detention a period of 11 years 9 months and 19 days whereas remissions were granted by the State Government as well as by the Jail Authorities to the tune of 7 years and 8 months. Therefore, in all he has undergone more than 14 years sentence including the remissions out of which admittedly, more than 8 years 6 months is the actual sentence which he has undergone. There, is no dispute as regards this factual position is concerned.
(2.) THE Petitioner has filed the present petition for his premature release on the grounds that his case for premature release has wrongly been declined three times and that the ground that the release of the Petitioner is likely to prove hazardous to peace and tranquillity in the locality is no legal ground to detain him in prison any longer. Mr. V. K. Jindal learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that simply because the Petitioner is guilty of commission of as many as four murders, the same is no ground to decline the premature release of a convict when he has undergone the necessary sentence which entitles him to be released within the meaning and ambit of provisions of para 516 -B of the Punjab Jail Manual. There is no denying the fact that since the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced before December 18, 1978, that is, before the amendment and insertion of Section 433 -A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner's case has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with paragraph 516 -B of the Punjab Jail Manual which is to be interpreted in this judgment is reproduced below: 516 -B. Action to be taken on expiry of 14 years. - -(2) With the exception of females and of males who were under 20 years of age at the time of commission of offence, the cases of every convicted prisoner sentenced to: -(G. of I Resolution No. 159 - -1667, dated 6th September, 1905 and P.G. No. 18608 Jails, dated 28th June, 1920). (i) Imprisonment/s for life. (ii) Imprisonment/s for life and term/s of imprisonment . (iii) Commulative periods of Rigorous imprisonment aggregating to more than 14 years. (iv) a single sentence of more than 20 years: (a) who has undergone a period of detention in jail amounting together with remission earned to 14 years; shall be submitted through the Inspector -General of Prisons, Punjab for the orders of the State Government. While interpreting the provisions of Paragraph 516 -B of the Punjab Jail Manual, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that no distinction has been made in Paragraph 516 -B, as regards the consideration of a case of an accused for premature release is concerned, whether a particular accused has committed one murder or more than one murder. In other words, his argument is that the gravity or heinousness of the crime is no ground for not releasing the Petitioner when he is entitled to be released in law. On the other hand, Mrs. Charu Tuli, learned Counsel for the Respondents who has argued the case rather with greater vehemence, submits that the gravity of the offence is a major factor which must weigh with the Court for declining the premature release and that the heinousness of the crime should both be legal as well as moral factor for dismissing a petition of premature release.
(3.) AFTER considering the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, who have ably argued the case, I am of the opinion that the gravity or heinousness of offence is no ground to decline the benefit of the provisions of Paragraph 516 -B of the Punjab Jail Manual. In my view, the gravity of the offence is a factor for awarding the sentence. An accused in view of seriousness of the offence can be ordered to be hanged but once a Court of! law after taking the facts and circumstances into consideration in its wisdom has thought it appropriate to award life imprisonment, that accused becomes an ordinary life convict and the law does not make any distinction between that life convict who has committed more than one murder and another life convict who has committed only one murder. To put any other interpretation to the provisions of Paragraph 516 -B of the Punjab Jail Manual, it would amount to doing violation to the provisions of the Paragraph. Had the concerned authorities thought it appropriate, they could have while enacting the provisions of Paragraph 516 -B of the Punjab Jail Manual, would have made any provision to the contrary or different guidelines could be laid down for dealing with the cases of those accused who have committed one murder and about the accused persons who have committed more than one murder. After an accused has started undergoing the sentence imposed upon him, his conduct in Jail has to be seen. The Petitioner in the instant case was released several times on parole and furlough and he maintained peace and no untoward incident happened. The circumstances and the motive for the offence or even bitter feelings of the complainant - - par whose relations have lost their lives would not diminish even after the expiry of full period of 20 years of sentence. To the similar effect are the observations made by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Harbhajan Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors., 1988 (2) RCR 125. Their Lordship of Delhi High Court, of course, were not dealing with a case where more than one murder was committed, yet it would not make any difference in law. While dealing with the similar situation, a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nainaram and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. : 1987 Cri. L.J. 1981 observed that the heinousness of crime was no legal ground for declining the premature release of a life convict. In that case the accused were sentenced for committing triple murder and their petition was allowed. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in another case in Rakesh Kaushik and Ors. v. Delhi Administration and Anr., 1986 (2) RCR 171, again observed that the objection of the State that there was a party -faction and the premature release of a life convict may cause mishap was not a valid ground for declining a petition for premature release.;