( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India putting in issue the order of the President of India under Article 72 of the constitution rejecting the petitioners prayer for pardon.

( 2 ) WE have heard Shri Colin Gonsalves, the learned counsel for the petitioner for about 1-1/2 hours as also Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Senior counsel for the State of West Bengal present on caveat.

( 3 ) THE convict in this case has been held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 376, 380 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC. The capital sentence passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Alipore was confirmed by the High Court, on the death reference having been dismissed. The matter came to this Court and the appeal filed by the convict was dismissed on 11-1-1994 by the decision of this Court in Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W. B. 1 The learned Sessions judge, the High Court and this Court have all recorded a finding that the case was "rarest of the rare cases" warranting the award of capital punishment.

( 4 ) IN the decision of this Court in Dhananjoy Chatterjee it is clear that anxious consideration was given to the question of sentence keeping in view the changed legislative policy, as also the observations made by this Court in bachan Singh v. State of Punjab2 laying down the principles on the application of which the award of capital punishment can be justified. This court summed up its conclusions in the matter of awarding capital punishment to the accused-appellant in the following words:

( 5 ) 16. The sordid episode of the security guard, whose sacred duty was to ensure the protection and welfare of the inhabitants of the flats in the apartment, should have subjected the deceased, a resident of one of the flats, to gratify his lust and murder her in retaliation for his transfer on her complaint, makes the crime even more heinous. Keeping in view the medical evidence and the state in which the body of the deceased was found, it is obvious that a most heinous type of barbaric rape and murder was committed on a helpless and defenceless school-going girl of 18 years. If the security guards behave in this manner who will guard the guards? The faith of the society by such a barbaric act of the guard, gets totally shaken and its cry for justice becomes loud and clear. The offence was not only inhuman and barbaric but it was a totally ruthless crime of rape followed by cold-blooded murder and an affront to the human dignity of the society. The savage nature of the crime has shocked our judicial conscience.

( 6 ) THE Court also held that there were no extenuating or mitigating circumstances whatsoever in the case.

( 7 ) THE Court showed its concern and awareness that the consequence of the sentence of death would be depriving of a human life and then held that the facts of the case warranted no punishment other than the capital punishment being awarded to the accused. Accordingly, the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant was confirmed.

( 8 ) THE sequence of events furnished on behalf of the petitioner makes it clear that successive petitions have been filed either by the petitioner or on his behalf under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution which have all been rejected at the end. Successive petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court and under Article 32 of the Constitution before this court have been filed, which have also been dismissed as devoid of merit.

( 9 ) WHAT is impugned herein is the rejection of petition under Article 72 of the Constitution by the President of India in the first week of August 2004.

( 10 ) ALTHOUGH the decision of the President of India on a petition under article 72 of the Constitution is open to judicial review but the grounds therefor are very very limited. In the Constitution Bench decision in Maru ram v. Union of India3 this Court has held that it is only a case of no consideration or considerati