Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M.Sanjeevaiah, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 January, 2023
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.35790 of 2022
ORDER:
The son of the petitioner was convicted on 17.08.2013 in
S.C.No.438 of 2012, by the V Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tirupati, for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C and
was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in the event of default of payment, to
suffer a further imprisonment of two months. The appeal filed
against this Judgment and sentence was dismissed by the High
Court on 20.06.2019 in Crl.Appeal No.776 of 2013. The
sentence passed by the trial Court was also confirmed.
2. The petitioner states that his son is presently
undergoing the sentence. The petitioner further states that the
name of his son was included in a list of 35 life convicts who
were recommended for remission by the authorities of the
Central Prison, Kadapa on the eve of Independence Day 2022.
The Government after considering the said list and endorsement
forwarded by the authorities of the Central Prison, Kadapa had
released the actual list of life convicts whose sentences were
remitted. However, the name of the son of the petitioner was
missing in the list communicated vide G.O.Ms.No.121 Home
(Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 14.08.2022.
3. Aggrieved by the said omission of the name of his
son in the list attached to G.O.Ms.No.121 dated 14.08.2022, the
petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ
petition.
4. The petitioner contends that the omission of the
name of his son without giving any reasons is against the
principles of natural justice and is also discriminatory as there
are no reasons why the name of his son has been deleted in the
final list of persons to whom remission has been granted. The
petitioner also contended that remission may have been denied
to his son on the ground that the victim in the criminal case was
an employee of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam and that it
should not make any difference while considering the case of his
son for remission.
5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In
the counter affidavit it is stated that the son of the petitioner is
undergoing life imprisonment in Central Prison Kadapa after
paying the fine amount levied by the trial Court. The son of the
petitioner is said to have served 10 years 5 months and 9 days
of sentence including remission as on 15.08.2021. While things
stood thus, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.91 Home
(Paroles & HRC) Department dated 16.08.2021 setting out
guidelines for grant of special remission to life convicts on the
occasion of the Independence Day in 2021. Thereafter, the list of
eligible life convicts, as per the above guidelines was called for
by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services,
Andhra Pradesh vide Memo No.RC-2/74/2021-1 dated
16.08.2021. After receipt of such memo, the list of life convicts
who had completed 7+3 years of imprisonment including
remission which included the name of the son of the petitioner,
had been forwarded for consideration.
6. This list was considered by an internal committee
and the case of the son of the petitioner, was rejected on the
ground that Rule No.8, Category-II, Condition No.XV of
G.O.Ms.No.91, Home (Paroles &HRC) Department, Dated
16.08.2021 made the son of the petitioner ineligible for grant of
special remission.
7. G.O.Ms.No.91 gave one time exemption to consider
special remission in cases of categories set out in clause 7 of the
said G.O. Category B of clause 7 enumerated cases of convicted
male persons sentenced to imprisonment for life and who have
undergone an actual sentence of 7 years including the remand
period and total sentence of 10 years including remission on
15.08.2021. However, clause 8 stipulated that the persons
enumerated in category-I and Category II of clause 8 would not
be eligible for such exemption. Sub clause xv of Category II of
clause 8 reads as follows:
"The prisoners convicted of murder of Public
Servants while performing duty".
8. The question before this Court is whether the son of
the petitioner had murdered a Public Servant while the said
public servant was performing duty.
9. The Judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.438 of
2012 reveals the following facts on the basis of which the son of
the petitioner had been convicted.
a) The son of the petitioner, suspecting that his wife was
in an illicit relationship with the deceased had killed
the deceased.
b) The trial Court recorded the fact that the deceased had
obtained allotment of a room in Srinivasam complex on
16.03.2012 and that the wife of the son of the
petitioner had joined the deceased in that room.
c) The wife of the son of the petitioner had stated that the
deceased telephoned her on 16.03.2012 insisted her to
oblige his lust due to which she went to the Srinivasam
complex on 16.03.2012 and remonstrated with him
before leaving the said complex and had thereafter,
narrated the incident to her husband on 17.03.2012.
d) The trial Court disbelieved this version on the ground
that the C.C T.V footage in the said complex showed
that the wife of the son of the petitioner had entered the
complex at 1.35 P.M and had remained within the
complex for about 3 hours 45 minutes.
e) The facts relating to the actual incident of homicide, as
accepted by the trial Court was that on 17.03.2012,
about 9.40 a.m, the son of the petitioner followed the
deceased on a motor cycle and stabbed the deceased
with a knife in his abdomen at the entrance of the
Administrative Building of the Tirumala Tirupati
Devasthanam. Thereupon the deceased ran towards the
main building followed by the accused shouting that
the later had developed illegal contacts with his wife
and waylaid the deceased who fell down, upon which
the son of the petitioner stabbed the deceased several
times while shouting that he would kill him as he had
developed illegal contact with his wife.
f) This version was also accepted by this Court in
Crl.A.No.776 of 2013.
10. The deceased was working as a Senior Assistant in
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. The deceased would have to be
treated as a public servant.
11. The deceased was murdered while he was going to
his place of work. He was not performing any duty. He was
murdered on account of the suspicion of the son of the
petitioner that the deceased was in an illicit relationship with
his wife. In the circumstances, the cause of death or homicide
was not on account of any duty performed by the deceased as a
public servant nor was he killed while he was performing any
duty as a public servant.
12. In the circumstances, sub clause 15 of Category II in
clause 8 would not be applicable to the case of the son of the
petitioner.
13. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is
allowed directing the respondents 1, 3 & 4 to reconsider the
case of the petitioner without reference to the prohibition
contained in Sub clause XV of Category II of clause 8 of
G.O.Ms.No.91 Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated
16.08.2021. The said exercise shall be conducted within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Date :04.01.2023
RJS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.35790 of 2022
Date : 04.01.2023
RJS
