KRISHAN LAL Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001972-001973 / 2012
Diary number: 26681 / 2011
Advocates: ARUN KUMAR BERIWAL Vs
T. MAHIPAL
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1972-1973 OF 2012 (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
1
Page 2
& 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
2
Page 3
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
abovesaid 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
3
Page 4
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
4
Page 5
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
5
Page 6
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
6
Page 7
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
7
Page 8
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
8
Page 9
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.
9
Page 10
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
1
Page 11
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
1
Page 12
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.
1