Lalaram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6318 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26831-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 447/2022

Lalaram S/o Sh. Chunilal, Aged About 30 Years, At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur Through His Mother Smt. Mori Devi W/o Chunilal, Age About 65 Years, R/o Village Rana Teh. And P.s. Rohat, Dist. Pali.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Home Depart.

Jaipur.

2. The Dist. Collector, Pali.

3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati.
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Anil Joshi, GA cum AAG.
                                   Mr. Rajat Chhaparwal.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order 24/08/2023

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking release

on permanent parole.

2. It is inter-alia indicated in the petition that petitioner was

convicted for offences under Section 302, 201 & 380 IPC with

death sentence vide judgment dated 12.09.2007 by Additional

Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 passed in Sessions Case

No.56/2006.

3. Aggrieved of the said judgment, the appellant preferred D.B.

Criminal Appeal No.838/2007, which came to be decided by

judgment dated 21.11.2008, whereby, the conviction was

confirmed. However, the death sentence imposed on him was

commuted and modified into imprisonment for life.

[2023:RJ-JD:26831-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLW-447/2022]

4. It is submitted that the petitioner has completed 14 years of

his sentence and he is eligible for consideration for permanent

parole under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on

Parole) Rules, 2021.

5. The petitioner applied before the State Government for being

released on permanent parole. However, the same has not been

decided. Based on the said submissions, it was prayed that either

the petitioner be ordered to be released on permanent parole and/

or the State be directed to decide the pending application.

6. A reply to the writ petition has been filed inter-alia pointing

out that this Court while deciding the Criminal Appeal

No.838/2007 filed by the petitioner, on 21.11.2008, besides

imposing life imprisonment, had ordered that the appellant -

Lalaram shall not be released from the prison unless he has

served out 20 years in the prison including the period already

undergone by him and as the petitioner has not served the said 20

years imprisonment, as directed, he is not entitled to be released

on permanent parole.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that

irrespective of the stipulation made in the order passed by the

Division Bench while modifying the sentence from death to life

imprisonment, the petitioner is entitled for permanent parole.

Reliance has been placed on Sukhveer @ Kooli Vs. State of

Rajasthan: Criminal Appeal 1265/2023, decided on 24.04.2023.

8. Learned AAG made submissions that plea based on order in

the case of Sukhveer @ Kooli (supra) is baseless, as in the said

judgment such stipulation was made by the Sessions Court, which

was set-aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court and is against the

[2023:RJ-JD:26831-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLW-447/2022]

judgment dated 21.11.2008. No challenge has been laid by the

petitioner, the said order of not releasing him for 20 years has

become final and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

9. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

10. As noticed hereinbefore, by judgment dated 07.09.2007 &

12.09.2007, the trial court convicted and sentence the appellant

for offences under Section 302, 201, 380 IPC for death sentence.

11. In appeal filed by the appellant and the reference, the

Division Bench inter-alia ordered as under:-

"36. For the foregoing reasons, D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 2 of 2007 is dismissed whereas D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No.835 of 2007 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2007 both filed by A-1 are partly allowed. Resultantly, conviction of A-1 for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for committing five murders is hereby confirmed and maintained. However, death sentence imposed on him for commission of murder of Bhimnath, Chhoti Devi, Kalu, Shiva and Bhanwarlal is hereby commuted and modified into imprisonment for life. We further direct that A-1 (accused Lalaram) shall not be released from prison unless he has served out atleast 20 years' imprisonment including the period already undergone by him."

12. The direction given by the Division Bench while dismissing

the reference and partly accepting the jail appeal while confirmed

the conviction of the appellant, modifying the sentence into life

imprisonment and further specifically stipulating that the appellant

shall not be released from prison unless he has served out 20

years in the prison including the period already undergone by him.

[2023:RJ-JD:26831-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLW-447/2022]

The said direction, which has been passed by the Division Bench

continues to be in operation, inasmuch as, the petitioner is yet to

complete 20 years imprisonment.

13. So far as the order in the case of Sukhveer @ Kooli (supra)

relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in the said

case the Sessions Court directed that the accused person will

suffer life imprisonment 'till his last breath'. Regarding which, in

appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court, submissions were made,

wherein, the Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Union of

India Vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors.: 2016 (7) SCC 1 held that

the directions can be issued that a person, who has been directed

to undergo life imprisonment should continue to remain in Jail till

his last breath, can only be passed by the Constitutional Courts.

14. In the present case, though the direction to remain in Jail till

the last breath has not been passed. However, the same pertains

to remaining in prison for 20 years has been passed by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court and, therefore, neither the order in

the case of V. Sriharan (supra) or Sukhveer @ Kooli (supra) would

have any application to the facts of the present case.

15. In view of the above fact situation, wherein, the petitioner is

yet to complete 20 years imprisonment, his plea seeking

permanent parole is premature. The same is, therefore,

dismissed.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 22-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)