LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

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)?=“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.”= 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.


                                                                  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