W. P. No. 3939 of 2004. Case: Bharat Vs State of Chhattisgarh. Chhattisgarh High Court
| Case Number | W. P. No. 3939 of 2004 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: Vimlesh Bajapai, Adv. and For Respondents: Arun Sao, Deputy Advocate General. |
| Judges | Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 161 |
| Citation | 2015 CriLJ 1601 |
| Judgement Date | February 10, 2015 |
| Court | Chhattisgarh High Court |
Judgment:
-
In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the orders Annexures-P/11 and P/12 whereby the Hon'ble Governor of Chhattisgarh. has pardoned respondents 5 and 6 in exercise of powers under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and has directed their release from jail.
-
Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that respondents 5 and 6 along with several other accused persons were tried for committing offences under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC for committing murder of deceased Hanua at 8.30 a.m. on 11th July, 1975. The Trial Court acquitted Arjun, Bhikham, Nanku and Parethan. Respondents 5 and 6 along with some other accused persons were convicted by the trial Court and the said conviction was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court, by judgment dated 5.10.1990 in Cr.A. No.168/79: (AIR 1991 SC 4), allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of all other accused except respondents 5 and 6, Baran and Karan. Thus, out of 19 accused persons only 4 stood convicted. When respondents 5 and 6 were undergoing the jail sentence, an application for pardon was moved before the Hon'ble Governor and the same has been allowed by the impugned order.
-
The petitioner happens to be the son of the deceased. It is argued on his behalf that the sentence of life imprisonment would mean that the convict shall remain in jail for his entire life, therefore, his release by granting remission or pardon is contrary to the settled legal position. Learned counsel would refer to the provisions contained in Section 433-A of the Cr.P.C. and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India and others (1981) 1 SCC 107: (AIR 1981 SC 2147); Kehar Singh and another v. Union of India and another ((1989) 1 SCC 204: (AIR 1989 SC 653); Swaran Singh v. State of U.P. and others ((1998) 4 SCC 75: (AIR 1998 SC 2026).
-
Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that Hon'ble Governor has exercised the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution and it is not a case of remission of sentence, therefore, Section 433-A of the Cr.P.C. has no application in the case. He would refer to the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Joginder Singh and others ((1990) 2 SCC 611: (AIR 1990 SC 1396) and Ram Deo Chauhan alias Raj Nath Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das and others ((2010) 14 SCC 209: (AIR 2011 SC...
To continue reading
Request your trial