State of H.P. vs. Ramji Dass CR.A No.302 of 2005 (Disposed of) 14.05.2026 Present : Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General, for the applicant. Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate, for the respondents. CRMP No.1568 of 2026 This application has been registered in reference to communication dated 04.04.2026 received from the Director General, Prisons & Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh, addressed to Registrar General of this High Court, requesting for opinion of the High Court in case of premature release of life convict-Ramji Dass son of Sh. Chint Ram. 2. In view of pronouncement of the Apex Court in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595; Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626; and Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2022) 12 SCC 52, comments of the applicant-State were called to assist the Court to render its opinion on the following issues:- (i) whether the offence affects the society at large; (ii) the probability of the crime being repeated; (iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; (iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and (v) the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family. 3. In response, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated 13.05.2026 received from the Director General, Prisons & Corrections Services, Himachal Pradesh, which reads as under:- “(i) Whether the offence affects the society at large: The convict was sentenced under Section 302 IPC, which is undoubtedly a serious offence affecting society at large. However, the conduct and behaviour of the convict during incarceration indicate substantial reformation and rehabilitation. (ii) Probability of repetition of crime: During the entire period of incarceration, the convict was released on parole on 10 occasions and no complaint, breach of peace or adverse report was ever received from any authority. His conduct inside and outside the jail has remained satisfactory, which reflects that the probability of repetition of crime is very remote. (iii) Potential of the convict to commit crimes in future: The convict has Shown positive behavioural changes during incarceration. He has remained disciplined, cooperative and helpful towards jail administration as well as fellow inmates. He has also been entrusted with responsibilities under Open Air Jail facilities since 15.02.2017, which he has discharged satisfactorily. Therefore, the possibility of his involvement in criminal activities in future appears negligible. (iv) Whether any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison: The convict has already undergone actual sentence of about 14 years 10 months and 07 days as on 13.05.2026 excluding parole period and remission. His conduct demonstrates that he has reformed himself and is capable of leading a responsible social life. Presently, he is running a mobile canteen near IGMC, Shimla and is also providing food free of cost to poor and needy patients admitted there. Hence, no further fruitful purpose appears to be served by continued incarceration. (v) Socio-economic condition of the convict's family: The family of the convict belongs to a modest socio-economic background and depends primarily upon his earnings and support. The convict has been contributing positively towards the livelihood and welfare of his family through lawful means while availing Open Air Jail facility. Further, the premature case of the convict has also been verified through, Chief Probation Officer, Department of Empowerment of SCs, OBCs Minorities and the Specially abled and he recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release, Further, "As per the report of Tehsil Welfare-cum-Probation Officer, Padhar, District Mandi, convict, Ram Ji Dass, has one daughter, Smt. Rakhi Devi, who is married and resides with her in-laws in Village Rathoha, Tehsil Balh. She has no objection to his premature release. She further stated that her father is of good character, maintains cordial relations with the villagers, and participates in religious and social functions. The convict's parents have passed away. His elder brother, Gian Chand, who lives nearby, stated that Ram Ji Dass lives peacefully and behave, whenever released on parole and also maintains good relations in the village. They also described him as religious and socially well-adjusted person. Economically, the family is poor. Ram Ji Dass owns a single-room, uncemented house in Village Thanchar (Saner), which is currently unoccupied. He also owns about 4 biswa of land in the same village". A copy of the report of the Chief Probation Officer, Department of Empowerment of SCs, OBCs Minorities and the Specially abled, is also enclosed herewith as Annexure: 'A', for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.” 4. Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’), empowers the State to suspend or remit sentence of any person as a whole or any part of the punishment of a convict in terms of the provision of this Section. Section 474 of BNSS vests power in appropriate Government to commute the sentence. Section 475 of BNSS provides restriction of power of remission or commutation in certain cases. Section 474 of BNSS reads as under:- “474. Power to commute sentence. - The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute- (a) a sentence of death, for imprisonment for life; (b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not less than seven years; (c) a sentence of imprisonment for seven years or more, for imprisonment for a term not less than three years; (d) a sentence of imprisonment for less than seven years, for fine; (e) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced.” 5. Section 475 of BNSS reads as under:- “475. Restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in section 473, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 474 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.” 6. Provisions of Section 475 of BNSS provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 473, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person of an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least 14 years of imprisonment. 7. As apparent from the instructions imparted by the State, convict-Ramji Dass has served sentence of about 14 years 10 months and 07 days as on 13.05.2026, excluding the parole period and remission. 8. State has formulated Guidelines for considering premature release of prisoners undergoing life imprisonment in the prisons of Himachal Pradesh by the Himachal Pradesh State Sentence Review Board vide notification dated 25.12.2025. 9. Convict-Ramji Dass has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 30.07.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.302 of 2025 titled ‘State of H.P. vs. Ramji Dass,’ and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. 10. Relevant part of Clause 2 of the Guidelines notified on 25.12.2025, prescribing eligibility for premature release provides as under:- “The life convict covered under Section 475 BNSS are required to undergo 14 years of actual imprisonment before release. The total period incarceration including remissions in such cases should ordinarily not exceeded 20 years. The magnitude, brutality and gravity of offence for which the convict was sentenced to life imprisonment will be kept in view. Certain categories of convicted prisoners undergoing life sentence would be entitled to be considered for premature release only after undergoing imprisonment for 20 years including remission. The period of incarceration including remission even in such cases should not exceed 25 years. Following categories are mentioned in this connection by way of illustration and are not to be taken as an exhaustive list of such categories:- a) Convicts who have been imprisoned for life for murder in heinous cases such as murder with rape, murder with dacoity, murder involving an offence under the protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, murder committed after conviction while inside the Jail, murder during parole, murder of terrorist incident, murder in smuggling operation, murder of a public service on duty. b) Gangsters, contract killers, smugglers, drug traffickers, racketeers awarded life imprisonment for committing murders as also the perpetrators of murder committed with pre-mediation and with exceptional violence of perversity. c) Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment. 11. Convict in present case is not covered in the categories provided in the Guidelines, for which period of incarceration before remission should be 20 years, including the remission. 12. We have gone through the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, whereby Ramji Dass was convicted and have also considered the report submitted by applicant-State. 13. On the basis of material before us, in case, competent authority finds it fit, case of convict-Ramji Dass can be considered for remission. 14. The application is disposed of in aforesaid terms. 15. Registry is directed to transmit the copy of this order to Director General, Prisons & Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh, forthwith in response to his communication. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 14th May, 2026 (Pardeep)