Criminal Misc. No. M-3501 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-3501 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.03.2011 Balupuri and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. H.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana, for the respondents -State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) Balupuri and Sham Lal-petitioners were convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by judgment dated January 21st, 1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in case bearing First Information Report No. 32 dated April 11th, 1994 Police Station - Ismailabad and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `2000/- with default stipulation. 2. Concededly, as on April 24th, 2010, petitioner No.1 -Balupuri has undergone actual sentence of 14 years 11 months and 6 days and earned 4 years of remission whereas, petitioner No. 2 – Sham Lal has undergone actual sentence of 15 years and 16 days and has earned remissions of about 3 years. They have undergone total sentence of about 18 years 4 months including remissions, as is borne out from the impugned orders (Annexure P/3 and P/4). Their applications seeking premature release were dismissed by Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, Jail Department, Chandigarh, vide orders dated August 3rd, 2010 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) on the ground that their case falls Criminal Misc. No. M-3501 of 2011 2 .. under para 2(a) of the Policy dated February 4th, 1993 (Annexure P/2). Vide para 2(a), a convict who has committed heinous crime, his case may be considered after completion of 14 years actual sentence including under trial period and after earning at least 6 years remissions. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the case of the petitioners for premature release does not fall under para 2(a) rather, it falls under para 2(b) of the policy (Annexure P/2) because the offence committed by the petitioners was not heinous. He further urged that the occurrence in this case took place between the brothers on April 10th, 1994 in which brother of Balu Puri, petitioner No.1, was murdered by the opposite party. Balu Puri also received injuries at the hands of opposite party, as find mention in the judgment of the trial Court. The same are reproduced hereunder :- “1. Incised wound 8 x 3 cm on the antero lateral aspect of left leg in upper 1/3rd, transverse bone deep. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray. 2. Incised wound 5 x 2 cm just above right medial malleous, transverse, bone deep. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray. 3. Incised wound 2 x 1 cm on antero medial aspect of right leg at junction of medial 1/3rd and lower 1/3rd, transverse bone deep. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray. 4. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm on lateral aspect of right leg in medial 1/3rd, bone deep. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray. 5. Incised wound 2 x .5 cm on posterior aspect of right arm in lower 1/3rd vertical. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X- ray. 6. Lacerated wound 4 x 2 cm on occipital region present 2 cm above posterior occipital protuberance vertical bone deep. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray.” 5. Notwithstanding the above facts, the State Government considered the case of the petitioners under para No.2(a) instead of para No. 2(b) of the Policy (Annexure P/2). Criminal Misc. No. M-3501 of 2011 3 .. 6. Taking into consideration story of the prosecution and the fact that brother of petitioner No.1 was killed by the opposite party and petitioners had also received injuries in this occurrence, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners' case does not fall under para 2(a) of the Policy (ibid) and as such, their case should be taken as per para 2(b) of the Policy of February 4th, 1993 which provides that adult life convicts who have been imprisoned for life but whose cases are not covered under the category of heinous crimes viz. para 2(a), their cases may be considered after completion of 10 years actual sentence including under trial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 14 years. 7. In view of above, State is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioners under para 2(b) of the Policy of February 4th, 1993 (Annexure P/2) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. A copy of this order be given dasti (by hand) to the counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel. 04.03.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) som JUDGE