[ad_1]
Considering that “even a second-time murderer deserves consideration early releasethough after a period longer than 20 years”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has decided on a petition by a convict – in a 30-year-old murder case – seeking his premature release.
The High Court has directed the relevant authorities to consider the matter (in respect of the petitioner’s early release) afresh expeditiously, preferably within four months from the day the petitioner is readmitted to prison.
The High Court was hearing the petition filed by Janjir Singh, challenging the order dated 10 March 2017, in which the Haryana government dismissed the petitioner’s case for premature release. Janjir Singh was convicted of first-degree murder in an FIR recorded on April 2, 1992, at Hisar Police Station. He was convicted by Hisar Primary Court in December 2002 and sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal against his conviction to the Supreme Court was rejected in 2006.
Janjir Singh through his lawyers submitted that on the date of conviction of the petitioner (which is 23rd December 2002), the policy (dated 12th April 2002) of the Government of Haryana was in force and that his case fell under the provisions of Paragraph 2 (b) of the said policy, under which he was asked to He is subject to an effective sentence of 10 years and 14 years, including remission, and is entitled to early release. The petitioner claimed that since he had been subject to more than 12 years’ actual sentence and a total of about 15 years, including remission, he was entitled to be released on the grounds that he was covered under said policy.
The state’s attorney responded that the petitioner was involved in 13 other cases. The petitioner also served a longer stay in residence when he was granted parole and has been a fugitive for more than five years. Therefore, the petitioner as a seasoned and hardened criminal did not deserve to be released prematurely. The State’s Attorney added that the manner in which the deceased was killed by inflicting a number of injuries solely on suspicion that the deceased was a police informant shows that the petitioner could kill anyone at the drop of a hat.
Hearing the matter, Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill, while citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Muthuramalingam and Others v State, said, “It has been made clear that a lifeless person cannot be excluded from consideration simply because the sentences imposed on him. There is no such observation that many of offenses are fully washed away when subject to punishment and are not a consideration when considering eligibility for early release.”
“The import of the two judgments along with the presentation of the law by the Supreme Court in the Constitution Chamber in the Muthuramalingam case (above), is thus intended to make it clear that in cases of multiple judgments handed down along with life imprisonment, to run concurrently, and once completed to run the sentences concurrently concomitantly, the case of a convict for premature release cannot be withheld on the grounds that he has not yet been subjected to a sentence in respect of a term penalty. Perhaps there can be no dispute as to the said preposition of liability,” read the Supreme Court order.
The Supreme Court held that the Petitioner’s case did not fall under the provisions of Paragraph 2(b) of the Policy dated 12 April 2002. As the petition had been pending in this Court for nearly six years, the circumstances had changed substantially. As such, the concerned authorities are directed to consider the petitioner’s case anew in accordance with the law and in accordance with his capacity. While considering the Petitioner’s case, the relevant authorities shall take due account of the Petitioner’s conduct during the period in which he was kept on provisional bail which is effective from 19 December 2016 to date.
[ad_2]
