REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1
2 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1972-1973 OF 2012
3 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9202-9203 of 2011)
Krishan Lal .... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. .... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) These appeals are directed against the order dated 06.10.2010 passed
by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Writ Petition
(Parole) No. 10309 of 2010 whereby a show cause notice was issued to the
appellant herein and the State Government and
it was also held that the
convict- Krishan Lal (the appellant herein) shall not be released on parole
or otherwise as ordered by this Court on 29.03.2001
in the case of Subash
Chander vs. Krishan Lal & Ors. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 458 and also
against the final order dated 06.04.2011 by which the petition filed by the
appellant herein was dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
3) Brief facts:
(i) The appellant herein was an accused in a murder case along with 11
accused persons.
The trial Court convicted all the accused persons except
one for the offences under Section 302, 307, 148, 450 read with Sections
149 and 120B of the India Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and sentenced
them to death.
(ii) Aggrieved by the order of conviction and death sentence, the
appellant along with other accused persons filed appeals before the High
Court.
The High Court upheld the conviction of all the convicted persons
including that of the appellant herein but commuted the death sentence to
imprisonment for life.
(iii) Challenging the order of the High Court, the complainant – respondent
No.2 herein filed two sets of appeals bearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 812-814
of 1999 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 815-816 of 1999 before this Court praying
for setting aside the order of acquittal and awarding of death sentence to
the convicted persons as was done by the trial Court.
The accused persons
also filed two sets of appeals bearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 817-818 of 1999
and Criminal Appeal Nos. 819-820 of 1999 before this Court praying for
their acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded to
them by the trial Court and the High Court.
The State also filed appeals
before this Court for quashing the order of acquittal of one accused person
and for awarding death sentence to the convicted persons.
This Court, in
the above said appeals, by judgment dated 29.03.2001, confirmed the
conviction and sentence awarded to the accused persons by the High Court
and held that the imprisonment for life awarded to the appellant herein
shall be the imprisonment in prison for the rest of his life and
he shall
not be entitled to any commutation or premature release under Section 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”), Prisoners
Act, Jail Manual or any other Statute and the Rules made for the purposes
of grant of commutation and remissions.
(iv) Prior to the order of this Court in Subash Chander (supra),
on
06.03.1999 and 12.05.2000, the appellant herein was allowed regular parole
of 20 days and 30 days respectively by the Parole Advisory Committee and,
accordingly he availed the same.
During the period from 2001-2010, the
appellant tried for third regular parole for 40 days by filing various
applications but the same were not considered.
Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant herein moved the High Court by filing an application being D.B.
Criminal Parole No. 2982 of 2010.
The High Court by order dated
26.05.2010, directed the Parole Advisory Committee for considering the case
of the appellant. Vide order dated 12.08.2010, the Advisory Committee
released the appellant herein on parole on 18.08.2010 for 40 days.
(v) Aggrieved by the orders dated 26.05.2010 and 12.08.2010 passed by the
High Court and the Parole Advisory Committee respectively,
the Complainant-
respondent No.2 herein filed an application being Civil Misc. Application
No. 93 of 2010 in DB Criminal W.P. No. 2982 of 2010 before the High Court
for reconsideration of the order dated 26.05.2010 and for quashing the
order dated 12.08.2010 passed by the Parole Advisory Committee.
The High
Court, by impugned order dated 06.10.2010, issued show cause notice to the
appellant herein and the State Government and also held that the appellant
shall not be released on parole or otherwise as ordered by this Court in
the case of Subash Chander (supra).
After the reply of the appellant
herein, the High Court, by final order dated 06.04.2011 dismissed the
petition filed by the appellant herein as having rendered infructuous.
(vi) Against the orders dated 06.10.2010 and 06.04.2011, the appellant
has filed these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
4) Heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellant,
Mr. Amit Bhandari, learned counsel for respondent No.1-State and Mr.
Rishabh Sancheti, learned counsel for respondent No.2-the Complainant.
5) The only point for consideration in these appeals is
whether the
appellant is entitled to be released on parole in the light of the order
passed by this Court on 29.03.2001 in Subash Chander (supra)?
6) In order to understand the claim of the appellant,
it is useful to
refer the direction given by this Court in Subash Chander (supra).
When
the above-said appeals were filed by the complainant, the State as well as
the accused before this Court, it was represented on behalf of the present
appellant – Krishan Lal (A-1) that the Court can pass appropriate orders to
deprive the appellant herein of his liberty throughout his life. It is
also seen from the order that upon instructions, Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned
senior counsel submitted that Krishan Lal (A-1) – appellant herein, if
sentenced to life imprisonment, would never claim his pre-mature release or
commutation of his sentence on any ground. The above statement of the
learned senior counsel for Krishan Lal (A-1) – appellant herein had been
recorded by this Court. It is also relevant to note that in the course of
hearing, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel, who appeared for the
Complainant in that matter, contended that if accused like Krishan Lal (A-
1), appellant herein, is not awarded death sentence, he is likely to
eliminate the remaining family members of Bhagwan Ram, as is evident from
his past conduct and behaviour. He further submitted that in order to
protect the surviving family members of Bhagwan Ram, it is necessary to at
least deprive Krishan Lal(A-1)-appellant herein of his life. It is
relevant to point out that this Court accepted the apprehension made by the
learned senior counsel for the Complainant. In those circumstances, the
following order insofar as Krishan Lal – the appellant herein is concerned
was passed:
“23. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, apprehending
imminent danger to the life of Subhash Chander and his family in
future, taking on record the statement made on behalf of Krishan
Lal(A1), we are inclined to hold that for him the imprisonment for
life shall be the imprisonment in prison for the rest of his life.
He shall not be entitled to any commutation or premature release under
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Prisoners Act, Jail
Manual or any other statute and the Rules made for the purposes of
grant of commutation and remissions.”
(Emphasis supplied)
7) From the above direction, it is clear that Krishan Lal-appellant
herein has to serve the imprisonment throughout his life in prison and is
not entitled to any commutation or premature release under the Code or any
other Act including Prisoners Act, Jail Manual or any other statute and the
Rules made for the purposes of grant of commutation and remissions.
It is
true that this Court has not considered his right or entitlement of parole.
8) Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellant in
support of his claim for parole relied on the Rajasthan Prisoners Release
on Parole Rules 1958. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section
(6) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Government of
Rajasthan has passed the above Rules. Section 2(d) defines “Parole” as
under:
“2(d) “Parole” means conditional enlargement of a prisoner from
the jail under these rules”
As per the Rules, a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for not less than
one year may be permitted to make an application for release on parole
before the Prisoners Parole Advisory Committee.
Rules provide constitution
of Prisoners Parole Advisory Committee and procedures to be followed in
considering such applications. Rule 9 of the said Rules speaks about
Parole period.
Mr. Viswanathan has also pointed out that on the basis of
the said Rules, the appellant was granted parole on two occasions i.e., on
06.03.1999 and 12.05.2000 for a period of 20 days and 30 days respectively,
and when the appellant made another application praying for third parole
for 40 days, based on the order dated 26.05.2010 of the High Court, the
Advisory Committee, by order dated 12.08.2010 released the appellant on
parole for a period of 40 days on 18.08.2010. The said order was
challenged by the complainant – respondent No.2 herein by filing an
application being D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 93 of 2010 before the
High Court. Considering the earlier order of this Court dated 29.03.2001
in Subash Chander (supra), the High Court rejected the 3rd application
filed by the appellant for parole.
9) Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the Complainant
submitted that in view of the stand taken by the learned senior counsel for
the appellant before this Court giving up his right of praying for
commutation or premature release and be in prison till the end of his life
and the apprehension of the complainant’s family that in the event of his
release even on parole he is likely to eliminate the remaining family
members of Bhagwan Ram, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed.
10) We have already extracted the ultimate order of this Court confirming
the imprisonment for life in prison for rest of his life and foregoing
commutation or premature release under any of the statute or Rules or
Circulars.
Though Mr. Viswanathan has claimed that the appellant was
granted parole on two occasions for 20 days and 30 days and no adverse
against the appellant was reported, it is relevant to note that the
appellant was granted parole on the abovesaid two occasions prior to the
order passed by this Court on 29.03.2001 in Subash Chander (supra) and the
specific direction of this Court in that order was not placed for
consideration at the time of granting 3rd parole to the appellant by the
Advisory Committee.
11) Though the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958
enables the appellant to apply for parole before the Advisory Committee, we
are of the view that in view of the commutation of death sentence into life
imprisonment and specific conditions imposed foregoing commutation or
premature release under any statute or Rules and considering the
apprehension expressed by the complainant-respondent No.2 herein, we hold
that henceforth the appellant shall not be entitled for regular parole in
terms of Rule 9 of the said Rules.
However, if any contingency arises, the
same may be considered by the Advisory Committee in terms of Rule 10-A(i)
of the said Rules which reads as under:
“10-A(i) Notwithstanding the provision of rules 3,4,5, 9 & 10 in
emergent cases, involving humanitarian consideration viz., (1)
critical condition on account of illness of any close relations i.e.
father, mother, wife, husband, children, brother or unmarried sister;
(2) death of any such close relation; (3) serious damage to life or
property from any natural calamity; and (4) marriage of a prisoner,
his/her son or daughter or his/her brothers/sisters in case his/her
parents are not alive.
A Prisoner may be released on parole for a period not exceeding
7 days by the Superintendent of the Jail and for a period not
exceeding 15 days by the Inspector General of Prisons (District
Magistrate) on such terms and conditions as they may consider
necessary to impose for the security of the prisoner including a
guarantee for his return to the jail, acceptance or execution whereof
would be a condition precedent to the release of such prisoner on
parole.”
12) In view of the order of this Court dated 29.03.2001 in Subash Chander
(supra),
we reiterate that the appellant is not entitled to normal parole
in terms of Rule 9, however, in emergent cases involving humanitarian
consideration, the Authority concerned is free to pass appropriate orders
in terms of Rule 10 A(i) of the Rules. Even while considering such
application, the Authority concerned is directed to adhere to the
conditions mentioned in the said Rule, impose appropriate stringent
condition(s) and see that by the temporary release of the appellant nothing
happens to the complainant and his family and also pass appropriate orders
giving them necessary protection. It is also made clear that if the
Authority concerned is not satisfied with the reasons for temporary parole,
it is free to reject such application.
13) With the above direction, the appeals are disposed of.
...…………….…………………………J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
..…....…………………………………J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 03, 2012.
-----------------------
11
