Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Raj Kumar-petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 5.12.2003 (Annexure P1) passed by the Additional Director General of Police, Jails Department, Punjab, vide which the recommendation made by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala regarding premature release of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the case of the petitioner for premature release is not covered by the Instructions dated 14.8.2002 issued by the State Government as the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime for the murder of his wife.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of his wife vide judgment dated 8.8.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala and has been awarded sentence of life imprisonment. The allegations against the petitioner were that on 25.1.1994 at about midnight an altercation took place between the petitioner and the deceased as to whey he had come so late and why he had consumed liquor. The petitioner caught hold of his wife and Rakesh Kumar, brother of the petitioner, who is a co-accused poured kerosene oil on her and fire was lit by a match stick, due to which she expired in the hospital. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced on the basis of dying declaration made by the deceased wife. Now, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 8 years, 6 months and 14 days on the date of filing of the petition, i.e., on 26.3.2003. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he had earned a remission of 7 years, 5 months and 23 days, therefore, he has already undergone a total period of more than 16 years, including the aforesaid remission. It has been further stated that the State Government has issued instructions on 14.8.2002 in exercise of the powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India to remit the unexpired sentence of imprisonment for life and to grant special remission to prisoners. A copy of the Instructions has been attached as Annexure P3. According to the said Instruction, if a male prisoner who was 20 years or above old at the time of commission of offence and has undergone actual sentence for more than 8 years and with remission more than 13 years, he is entitled for premature release. The case of the petitioner for premature release was duly recommended by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala but by the impugned order dated 5.12.2002, respondent No. 2 rejected the recommendation regarding prematures release of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit in view of the exclusion Clause VI of the aforesaid Instructions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner for premature release has been wrongly rejected by respondent No. 2 as his case is not covered by the exception as laid down in Clause VI of the Instructions (Annexure P3). According to him, the said exception is applicable only in case where the person is involved in ghastly murder/double murder involving extreme brutality/bestiality. He submitted that the petitioner simply murdered his wife due to sudden altercation and the same does not fall under the definition of 'murder' which would probably be one where the murderer repeatedly inflicts fatal injuries on the victim and thereafter removes the dead body and disposes it of or otherwise acts in an unusual or brutal manner. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in Tarlok Singh v. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No. 7610 of 2002, decided on July 16, 2002 (Annexure P6).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the prayer of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had murdered his wife by sprinkling kerosene oil, therefore, the said crime was a heinous one and in such cases the benefit of premature release is not available, as per the exception Clause VI of the Government Instructions.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case this petition deserved to be allowed. The Instructions dated 14.8.2002 issued by the State Government provide the remission of balance of sentence of imprisonment for life to a male prisoner who was 20 years old or above at the time of commission of offence and has undergone actual sentence for more than 8 years and with remission more than 13 years. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by Clause A(i) of the said Instructions. However, the said benefit has been denied to the petitioner only on the basis of Clause Vi which provides that the benefit of remission shall not be admissible 'if the prisoner is involved in ghastly murder/double murder involving extreme brutal hybestiality in which the prisoner has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life or if he is involved in a crime connected with terrorism in the State.'
6. After going through the judgment dated 8.8.1995 passed by the learned Additional Judge in State v. Raj Kumar and Anr. (Annexure P5) vide which the petitioner alongwith co-accused was convicted and sentenced for the murder of his wife. I am of the opinion that the said act of the petitioner in the present case was an individual act vide which he along with his brother committed the murder of his wife by pouring kerosene oil and setting herself ablaze. It is also the case of the petitioner that when he came to his house at about midnight in a drunken condition an altercation look place between the petitioner and his wife regarding his late arrival and his consuming liquor, the husband with the help of his brother sprinkled kerosene oil on his wife and set her ablaze.
7. Looking to all the allegations and the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, I am of the opinion that the said individual act of the petitioner cannot be said to be a ghastly murder/double murder involving extreme brutality/bestiality. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid decision given in Tarlok Singh's case (supra). In that case also, the murder of the wife was committed by the husband by sprinkling kerosene oil and setting her on fire and on the same ground his case for premature release was rejected. This court while setting aside the order of rejection of the premature release case has held as under:-
'The ground for rejection was that the judgment shows that the convict Tarlok Singh alongwith co-accused had caught hold of the deceased. The convict picked up a bottle of kerosene oil from the kitchen and douched her with the kerosene and torched her. This, according to the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, indicated that the petitioner was guilty of a ghastly murder and was covered by Exception VI of the Institutions which reads as follows:-
'If the prisoner is involved in ghastly murder, double murder involving extreme cruelty, bestiality for which the prisoner has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life or if he is involved in the crime connected with the terrorism in the State.' A reading of the judgment of the Division Bench would reveal that only Tarlok Singh was found guilty of murder of Surinder Kaur and convicted under Section 302 IPC for his individual act of causing death by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire. Further more, the finding of the court was also that Tarlok Singh had come in the meantime picked up a bottle of kerosene from the kitchen poured it on Surinder Kaur and set her ablaze with a match stick. It was the individual act of Tarlok Singh and the other accused cannot be attributed with the common object or intention to cause the death of Surinder Kaur.
The above circumstances do not constitute a ghastly murder. Tarlok Singh had arrived at the scene unarmed. He had picked up a bottle of kerosene oil and poured it on Surinder Kaur and set her ablaze with a match stick. There does not seem to be pre meditation or preparation for the crime. Tarlok Singh did not act in an unusually cruel manner. A ghastly murder would probably be one where the murderer repeatedly inflicts fatal injuries on the victim and thereafter removes the dead body and disposes it for or otherwise acts in an unusual or brutal manner. The present does not appear to be a case where it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the petitioner was guilty of a ghastly murder.'
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5.12.2002 is hereby quashed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of premature release under the Instructions dated 14.8.2002. Hence, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his premature release in view of the Instructions (Annexure P3) as interpreted above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.