STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR versus RAM DIYA

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 10-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

_/ 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR .. 
v. 
A 
RAM DIYA 
·APRIL 10, 1990 
\ 
-
[S: RAT;'· ~'EL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
B 
REDDY, JJ.J 
Codi' of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Seciions 432, 433 and 433A-
Death sentence commuted to life sentence-'-Convictlon prior to intro-
duction of section 433A-Premature release of such life convicts-
Consideration by° State Government-Compliance with Court's direc-
tions. 
C· 
·Punjab Jail Manual: Paragraph 516-B-Executive instroctions-
Convicts whose sentence of death commuted to· life imprisonment-
Conviction prior to amendment of Cr.P. C: in 1978-Premature release 
· ~--
of-Applicability of the instructions. 
· -
D 
Paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual provides for prema-
ture release of prisoners, and is in the nature of executive instructions. 
The State Government modified the instructions in 1971 and 1976. The 
1976 instruction was to the effect that cases or life convicts whose sen-
tence bas been commuted should be considered for premature release 
only after completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment. The State 
Government further liberalised its policy and decided that such cases 
might be reviewed by a state level committee and directed that cases of 
life convicts who have completed 8~ yearS substantive sentence and 
sentence of 14/10 years including remission be submitted to the Com-
mittee. Later on the State Government clarified that the liberalised 
policy would not be applicable to the life convicts whose death sentence 
has been commuted to life imprisonment. 
· 
In 1978, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1~73 was amended 
introducing . section 433A providing that such life convicts · should 
undergo actual imprisonment of 14 years in jail. This Court declared 
that section 433A of the Code is prospective in effect and did not operate . 
against those cases which were decided by the trial court before 
18.12.1978 (Maru Ram etc. etc. v. Union of India and Anr., (1981] I 
SCR 1196). 
-. . 
. 
E 
F 
G 
. The cases of respondents were in fact covered by the said decision. 
H 
431 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990j 2 S.C.R. 
A 
They have filed writ petitions before the High Court for premature 
, release and the High Court directed the State Government to consider 
their cases. The State Government has .preferred these appeals, by 
special leave, against the orders of the High Court. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. No one has gQt a vested right to claim pre-mature 
release on the ground that he has suffered the minimum actual impri· 
sonment as prescribed under section 433A Cr.P.C. because a sentence 
~ 
of 'imprisonment for life' is incarceration until death, that is, for the 
remaining period or convicted person's actual life. There is no questi<in 
~ 
C . of releasing suth a lifer early in the absence of an order of commutation 
under section SS IPC by the appropriate Government, or under section 
433(b) of Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 by the appropriate Govern-
ment or on a clemency order in exercise of power under Article 72 or 
'161 of the Constitution oflndia. [43SE-F; G-Hl 
· ' 
· ~ 
D 
E 
F 
G 
·: H 
' 
. 
1.2. In the instant case, the conviction of the respondents was 
recorded early to the introduction of section 433A and, therefore, as per · 
the ratio laid down in Maru Ram's case, the two respondents are 
entitled for consideration of release by the appropriate Government 8s · 
per the prevailing rules or executive instructions. Further, admittedly, 
, the State Government did not take up the cases of the respondents for 
premature release within six months of the order of this Court tlated 
10th December 1980 in Sant Ram's case, (W.P. Nos. 1252-64/80 etc. 
etc.) and deferred the consideration of premature release till the 
·respondents bad completed 14 years of substantive sentence. It has 
become obligatory for the State to conside~ the cases of premature 
release of the respondents in accordance with the rules or executive 
in5tructions prevailing and applicable to them at the relevant time i:e. 
between tlje period 10.12.1980 and 9.6.1981. The plea of the appellant 
that the premature release of the respondents was not considered since 
they have not completed 14 years of substantive imprisonment ls in vio-
lation of the d~ions of the order dated 10th December, 1980 of this 
Court and so the appellant cannot be permitted tO make such a plea on 
the stength of the executive instructions overlooking and ignoring the 
above direction

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.