The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a petition filed for premature release held that trial Courts cannot impose life sentences for the remainder of natural life and the convicts will not be barred from pre-mature release for the reason that their appeal against such conviction is pending.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was convicted along with one other person under Section 302 for committing the offence of murder in 2012 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, which would extend to their full life. The petitioner then filed the present petition praying for the issuance of direction to the respondents to grant her premature release.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has already undergone more than double the requisite actual custody period for premature release as per the premature release policy framed by the State of Punjab. The learned counsel further said that the trial court cannot award a sentence of jail for the remainder of the natural life as held in Union of India vs. V. Sriharan by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was contended on behalf of the respondent that as per the premature release policy of the Government of Punjab, there is no provision for such prisoners to grant the benefit of premature release, where the Court has awarded punishment till death or imprisonment till natural life. The learned counsel also argued that the petitioner had been found guilty and received a three-year sentence in 2014 due to her failure to surrender after being granted emergency parole.
The counsel further contended that due to the pendency of appeal filed by the petitioner against her conviction and sentence which is to be considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court, the present petition is not maintainable.
Observations of the Court:
The court while relying upon Harjit Singh @ Hare Ram vs. State of Punjab & Others (2015) and Narayan Dutt & Others vs. State of Punjab and another (2011) observed that the petitioner will not be barred from seeking pre-mature release simply because the petitioner’s appeal against the order of the conviction by the trial court was pending before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The court also rejected the claim that her case should be disregarded due to her prison conviction in 2014. The court held that since the petitioner is already serving a life imprisonment sentence, any subsequent conviction and sentence should be served concurrently with the earlier life imprisonment sentence.
The court further stated that the order of the trial court in sentencing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life, with a rider to extend to full life, clearly violates the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India vs. V. Sriharan. Such a sentence can be passed either by this Court (High Court) or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court only.
The decision of the Court:
The court came to the conclusion that this order is subject to the final outcome of the Petitioner’s appeal against the order of the trial court. In case the Appellate Court, after reviewing the case, decides that the petitioner was required to undergo imprisonment for life till her natural life, then the petitioner will have to surrender before the concerned authorities or as may be directed by the concerned Appellate Court.
Case Title: Ravdeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Case No.: Cr.W.P No. 3794 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, Mr. Ajaivir Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. P.S. Pandher
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
