In CRWP No. 7183 of 2022-PUNJ HC- Policy applicable to claim premature release would be one which was applicable when verdict of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment was imposed upon life convict: P&H HC Justice Sureshwar Thakur [03-08-2022]

Read Order: Kabal Singh v. State of Punjab and others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, August 8, 2022:  Recently, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that the state government policy (for premature release of convict) applicable to the relevant claim, would be the policy as applicable at the time when the verdict of conviction and the consequent sentence of life imprisonment is imposed upon the life convict. 

The petitioner was a life convict and he suffered a verdict of conviction in respect of a case emanating from an FIR registered under Sections 302, 120-B of the IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 

The petitioner was seeking the benefit of his premature release from prison in terms of the  policy drawn by the State of Punjab on July 8, 1991. The competent authority on being approached by the petitioner with the aforesaid plea, declined to grant him the said benefit. Hence the present petition was filed before the Court. 

At the very outset, the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur opined that the policy applicable to claim for premature release of convict would be the policy as applicable at the time when the verdict of conviction and the consequent sentence of life imprisonment is imposed upon the life convict. 

Applying the above stated proposition to the present case, the Court observed that the verdict of conviction was passed against the present petitioner in the year 2012 and at that point in time, the 1991 Policy was prevalent. 

The petitioner argued that an adult life convict was required to be spending a total span of 14 years of imprisonment in the prison along with remissions and the period spent on parole by the life convict is to be excluded from the above spell.

In order determine whether the above period of 14 years was spent in the prison by the life convict along with remissions and exclusive of the period spent on parole, the Court  perused the custody certificate of the present petitioner, which revealed that the actual period of sentence as spent in the prison, by the present petitioner was 10 years but since it was also stated that he earned remission for a term about 8 years, therefore, the Bench opined, 

“upon totaling the actually spent period, in prison, by the life convict, which is about 10 years, with the above term of remissions, as, became earned by the petitioner, thereupon the total sentence for the relevant purpose comes to a term of 16 years.”

Further, Justice Thakur added, 

“In consequence [of the 1991 Policy], when in terms thereof, he was to undergo 8 years of total actual sentence or he was to spend 14 years imprisonment along with remission period, spell whereof, in consonance therewith has been evidently spent or undergone in prison by the present petitioner.”

The impugned order was found by the Court to be illegal and thus was set aside. The Superintendent of the Jail was directed to forthwith prematurely release the present petitioner from the prison.