State of HP Vs. Kuldeep Singh Cr.MP NO. 238 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No. 48 of 1997. 19.3.2025 Present: Mr. Mandeep Thakur and Ms., Swati Driak, Deputy Advocates General, for the appellant. Present reference has been received from Superintendent Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai District & Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala for seeking the opinion regarding the premature release of convict -Kuldeep Singh son of Shri Partap Chand, who was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1997, decided on 28.7.2010, arising out of FIR No. 105, dated 21.4.1995, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. A perusal of the judgment passed by this Court shows that convict-Kuldeep Singh had gone to the house of his parents-in-law along with his wife. He asked for meal and was told by his father-in-law to go in the kitchen and take the meal himself. The accused stated that he was not being given any respect in the house of his parents-in-law. He took a knife and gave 3-4 blows to his father-in-law. His mother-in-law tried to save her husband but accused also gave 03 blows of knife to her. Both the persons subsequently succumbed to their injuries. It was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Chander Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 52 that while giving the opinion regarding the premature release, the Court has to consider whether the offence affects the society at large; the crime is likely to be repeated; the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; if any fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the convict in prison and the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family. This position was reiterated in Rajo @ Rajwa Rajendra Mandal Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 717. This Court had called the report of the Probation Officer to determine the socio-economic condition of the convict. The Probation Officer reported that convict belongs to a poor family and as per the report of the Panchayat, his conduct was good. The neighbors also stated that convict has a good behavior with them whenever he visits his family during parole. The family professes Hindu religion. The circumstance of the case shows that the incident occurred all of a sudden when the convict felt that he was not being given any respect in the family of his parents-in-law. This was a dispute between the convict and his parents-in-law, and as such the offence does not affect the society at large. The report does not indicate the propensity of the convict of committing crime; therefore, there is no probability of the crime being repeated. The convict has also undergone the sentence of 14 years 07 months and 17 days as per the report of the Superintendent Jail. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the convict further in prison. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is nothing on record which would disentitle the convict from the benefit of premature release from jail if otherwise found suitable. Reference is answered accordingly. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 19th March, 2025 (Guleria)