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