SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 48 of 2014
WITH Writ Petion (Crl.) Nos. 185, 150, 66 of 2014
AND Criminal Appeal No. 1215 of 2011
UNION OF INDIA – Petitioners
Versus
V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 02.12.2015
(B) Sentence — Powers to remit or commute — Appropriate Government for — Executive powers of the Union and the State normally operate in different fields — The fields are well demarcated — In relation to Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution, Sec. 55A of the IPC and Sec. 432(7) of Cr.P.C. it is only in respect of sentence of death — Even when the offence in question is referable to the executive power of the State, that both the Central and State Governments have concurrent power under Sec. 434 of Cr.P.C. — And if a convict is sentenced under more than one offences, one or some relating to the executive power of the State Government and the other relating to the Executive Power of the Union — Sec. 435(2) provides a clear answer — And except the matters referred — Sec. 432(7), Cr.P.C. does not give primacy to the executive power of the Union.
(Para 30)
(C) Sentence — Powers to remit or commute — Exercising of — Whether the Union or the State had primacy over the subject-matter enlisted in List III of the 7th Schedule, Constitution of India — In respect of matters in list III of the 7th Schedule to the Constituion, ordinarily the executive power of the State alone must extend — To this general principle there are two exceptions as stated in Proviso to Articles 73(1), Constitution — In the absence of any express provision in the Constitution itself or in any law made by Parliament, it is the executive power of the State which alone must extend. (Para 30)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Secs. 432(7), 434, 435(2) — Two appropriate Governments — Possibility of — Held there can possibly be two appropriate Governments in a situation contemplated u/s 435(2), Cr.P.C. — In respect of cases of death sentence, even when the offence is one to which the executive power of the State extends — Central Government can also be appropriate Government as stated in Sec. 434, Cr.P.C. — Except these two cases as dealt with in Sec. 434 and 435(2) of Cr.P.C. there cannot be two appropriate Governments.
(Para 30)
(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 432(1) — Exercise of power of remission under — Remissions are of two kinds — The first category is of remissions under the relevant Jail Manual which depends upon the good conduct or behavior of a convict while undergoing sentence awarded to him — Generally referred to as ‘earned remissions’ and are not referable to Sec. 432, Cr.P.C. — Earned remissions depend upon the Jail Manual or the Policy in question and normally accrues and accumulates to the credit of the prisoner without there being any specific order by the appropriate Government in an individual case — While the one u/s 432 requires specific assessment in an individual matter and is case specific. (Paras 31, 32)
(F) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 432 — Suo motu exercise of power under — Held by exercise of power of remission, the appropriate Government is enabled to wipe out that part of the sentence which was not served out, and over-ride a judicially pronounced sentence — The decision to grant remission must, therefore, be well informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned — The procedure prescribed in Sec. 432(2) is designed to achieve this purpose — The power exercisable u/s 432(1) is an enabling provision and must be in accord with the procedure u/s 432(2) — Further held that suo motu exercise of power of remission u/s 432(1) is not permissible and exercise of power u/s 432(1) must be in accordance with the procedure u/s 432(2), Cr.P.C. (Paras 33, 34)
(G) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 435(1) — Does the term “Consultation” stipulated in Sec. 435(1), Cr.P.C. implies “concurrence” — Held the expression “consultation” ought to be read as concurrence — And primacy must be accorded to the opinion of the Central Government in matters covered u/cls. (a), (b) and (c), Sec. 435(1), Cr.P.C. (Para 40)
(H) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 432/433 and Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 72 and 161 — Powers under — Held that though these two powers, one constitutional and the other statutory, are co-extensive — The source is different, the substance is different and the strength is different. (Paras 43)
(I) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Secs. 432/433 and Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 72, 161, 32 — Whether the “appropriate Government” is permitted to exercise the power of remission u/Ss 432/433, Cr,P.C. after the parallel power was exercised by the President u/Art. 72 or the Governor u/Art. 161 or by Apex Court in its Constitutional power u/Art. 32 — In the instant case, each of the convict had undergone about 23 years of actual imprisonment, now there was definitely change in circumstances — An earlier exercise of power u/Art. 72 or 161 may have taken into account the gravity of the offence, the effect of such offence on the society in general and the victims in particular, the age, capacity and conduct of the offenders and the possibility of any retribution — Such assessment was on the day it was made — It is possible that with the passage of time the very same assessment could be of a different nature — It will therefore be incorrect and unjust to rule out even an assessment on the subsequent occasion — In the circumstances, it is permissible to the appropriate Government to exercise the power of remission u/Ss 432/433, Cr.P.C. even after the exercise of power by the President u/Art. 72 or the Governor u/Art. 161 or by Apex Court in its constitutional power u/Art. 32. (Paras 47, 48)
(J) Life Imprisonment — Sentence of — It means imprisonment for the rest of life or the remainder of life of the convict — And such convict can always apply for obtaining remission either u/Arts. 72 or 161, Constitution or u/s 432, Cr.P.C. and the authority would be obliged to consider the same. (Para 54)
(K) Death Penalty — Substituting of the other punishment of imprisonment for — Not open to the Court to make any special category of sentence in substitution of death penalty and put that category beyond application of remission, nor would it be permissible to stipulate any mandatory period of actual imprisonment inconsistent with the one prescribed u/s 433A, Cr.P.C. — Discussed. (Paras 58 to 75)
¼v½ n.M dks {kek] fuyfEcr] ifjgkj ;k y?kqdj.k dk vf/kdkj vuqPNsn 72 vkSj 161 }kjk jk”Vªifr o xouZj dks iznÙk gSA ¼izLrj 14½ ¼c½ n.M & ifjgkj ;k y?kqdj.k dk vf/kdkj & leqfpr ljdkj & la?k o jkT; dh dk;Zikyu ‘kfDr lkekU;r% fofHké {ks= esa fØ;k’khy gksrh gS & ;g {ks= iw.kZr% vH;afdr gS & lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 73 vkSj 162 o Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 55A vkSj n.M izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 432¼7½] ;g flQZ e`R;q n.M ls laca/k j[krk gS & tc dfFkr vijk/k jkT; ds dk;Zikyd ds vf/kdkj dks funsZf’kr gks fd dsUæ o jkT; ljdkj dks /kkjk 434] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr leorhZ vf/kdkj gSa & vkSj vxj nks”kh dks ,d ls vf/kd vijk/k ds fy, nf.Mr fd;k x;k gS] jkT; ljdkj dh dk;Zikyd ‘kfDr ds laca/k esa o la?k dh dk;Zikyu ‘kfDr esa] rc /kkjk 435¼2½ Li”V lek/kku nsrk gS & funsZf’kr ekeyksa ds vfrfjDr] /kkjk 432¼7½] n.M izfØ;k lafagrk la?k dh dk;Zikyd ‘kfDr dks izèkkurk iznku ugha djrkA ¼izLrj 30½ ¼l½ n.M & ifjgkj o y?kqdj.k dk vf/kdkj & iz;ksx & D;k la?k ;k jkT; dh Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds 7osa f’kM;wy dh lwph III esa lwphc) fo”k;oLrq ij iz/kkurk gS & lwph III, lafo/kku ds 7osa f’kM;wy ds ekeyksa esa lkekU;r% jkT; dh dk;Zikyd ‘kfDr foLrkfjr gS & bl lkekU; fl)kUr ds nks vk{ksi gSa tSlk fd lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 73¼1½ ds ijarqd esa dfFkr gS & lafo/kku esa fdlh Hkh vfHkO;Dr izko/kku ;k lkaln }kjk jfpr fo/kku dh vuqifLFkfr esa] jkT; dh dk;Zikyu ‘kfDr gh foLrkfjr gksrh gSA ¼izLrj 30½ ¼n½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 432¼7½] 434] 435¼2½ & nks leqfpr ljdkj & laHkkouk & vUrxZr 435¼2½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk esa vuq/;kr fLFkfr esa] nks leqfpr ljdkj laHkkfor gSa & e`R;q n.M ds ekeyksa esa] tc dfFkr vijk/k ij jkT; dh dk;Zikyd ‘kfDr dk foLrkj.k gks & dsUæ ljdkj esa /kkjk 434] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk esa dfFkr leqfpr ljdkj gks ldrh gS & /kkjk 434 o /kkjk 435¼2½] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk esa dfFkr oknksa ds vfrfjDr nks leqfpr ljdkj laHko ughaA ¼izLrj 30½ ¼;½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 432¼1½ & ifjgkj vf/kdkj dk iz;ksx & ifjgkj nks izdkj ds gksrs gSa & ifjgkj dh izFke Js.kh lacaf/kr tsy eSuqvy gS] tks fd vijkèkh ds lnkpkj o O;ogkj ij fuHkZj djrh gS & ftls ßmikftZr ifjgkjÞ dgk tkrk gS ijUrq ;g /kkjk 432] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk esa funsZf’kr ugha & ßmikftZr ifjgkjÞ tsy eSuqvy ;k ikWfylh ij fuHkZj djrk gS & lkekU;r% ;g fdlh O;fDrxr okn esa dSnh dks leqfpr ljdkj }kjk cxSj fdlh fof’k”V vkns’k fn, izkIr o lafpr gksrk gS & tcfd /kkjk 432 ds vUrxZr O;fDrxr okn esa fof’k”V fu/kkZj.k dh vko’;drk gksrh gS tksfd okn fof’k”V gSA ¼izLrj 31] 32½ ¼j½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 432 & Lo izsj.kk ds vUrxZr vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx & ifjgkj ds vf/kdkj dk iz;ksx leqfpr ljdkj dks leFkZ djrk gS] n.M ds ml Hkkx dks gVkus ds fy, tksfd iw.kZ ugha djh xbZ Fkh vkSj U;kf;drk mPpkfjr n.M ij vè;kjksgh gksrk gS & blfy, ifjgkj ds vuqnkj dk fu.kZ; lHkh lacaf/krksa dks iw.kZr% lwfpr] ;qfDr;qDr o mfpr gksuk pkfg, & dfFkr iz;kstu ds fy, /kkjk 432¼2½ esa izfØ;k fofgr gS & vUrxZr /kkjk 432¼1½ iz;ksxdkjh ‘kfDr ,d leFkZudkjh izko/kku gS] tks fd vUrxZr /kkjk 432¼2½ dh izfØ;k ls ,deR; gksuk pkfg, & vkSj ;g fd Loizsj.kk ls] vUrxZr èkkjk 432¼1½ ifjgkj ds vf/kdkj ds iz;ksx dh vuqefr ugha & vUrxZr /kkjk 432¼1½ vf/kdkj dk iz;ksx /kkjk 432¼2½] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk esa fofgr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼izLrj 33] 34½ ¼y½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 435¼1½ & D;k /kkjk 435¼1½] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk esa vuqc) vfHkO;fDr ßijke’kZÞ dk rkRi;Z leofrZrk gS & /kkfjr fd vfHkO;fDr ijke’kZ dks leofrZrk ds rkSj ij i<+k tk ldrk gS & vUrxZr /kkjk 435¼1½] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr okD;ka’k (a), (b) vkSj (c) esa vkPNkfnr ekeyksa esa iz/kkurk dsUæ ljdkj dh jk; dh lgefr ls gksuh pkfg,A ¼izLrj 40½ ¼o½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 432@433 vkSj Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 72] 161 & vUrxZr ‘kfDr & gkyk¡fd ;g nksuksa ‘kfDr;k¡] laoS/kkfud o oS/kkfud O;kid gksrh gS ij nksuksa dk lzksr] rkRi;Z o lkeFkZ fHké gksrk gSA ¼izLrj 43½ ¼V½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 432@433 vkSj Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 72] 161] 32 & D;k leqfpr ljdkj dks vUrxZr /kkjk 432@433] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ifjgkj ds vf/kdkj ds iz;ksx dh vuqefr gS tc fd vUrxZr vuqPNsn 72] jk”Vªifr ;k vUrxZr vuqPNsn 161 xouZj ;k vUrxZr vuqPNsn 32 viuh laoS/kkfud ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk lekukarj vf/kdkj dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k Fkk & izLrqr okn esa izR;sd vijkèkh }kjk 23 o”kZ dk dkjkokl Hkksxk x;k Fkk] vc fuf’pr ifjfLFkfr;k¡ fHké Fkha & iwoZ esa vUrxZr vuqPNsn 72 ;k 161 vf/kdkjksa ds iz;ksx esa vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk] dfFkr vijkèk dk lekt ij izHkko] fof’k”Vr% ihfM+r] vijkf/k;ksa dh mez] l{kerk] O;ogkj o fdlh izfrdkj dh laHkkouk ij fopkj fd;k x;k gksxk & dfFkr fu/kkZj.k ml fnu fd;k x;k gksxk & ;g laHkkouk fd le; chrus ds lkFk] dfFkr fu/kkZj.k dh izÑfr Hkh fHké gks ldrh gS & bl izdkj i’pkrorhZ volj ij fu/kkZj.k dks [kkfjt djuk vuqfpr o vU;kf;d gksxk & dfFkr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa leqfpr ljdkj dks vuqKs; fd vUrxZr vuqPNsn 72] jk”Vªifr] vUrxZr vuqPNsn 161] xouZj ;k vUrxZr vuqPNsn 32 lafo/kku ‘kfDr ds vUrxZr mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdkjksa ds iz;ksx ds i’pkr Hkh vUrxZr /kkjk 432@433] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ifjgkj dh ‘kfDr dk iz;ksx djsaA ¼izLrj 47] 48½ ¼B½ vkthou dkjkokl dk n.M & bldk vFkZ gS] vijk/kh ds ‘ks”k thou ;k vo’ks”k ds fy, dkjkokl & dfFkr vijk/k lnSo vUrxZr lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 72 ;k 161] ;k vUrxZr /kkjk 432] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] ifjgkj ds fy, vkosnu fd;k tk ldrk gS] ftl ij izkf/kdkjh }kjk fopkj fd;k tk,xkA ¼izLrj 54½ ¼n½ e`R;q n.M dk vU; dkjkokl n.M ls izfrLFkkiu & U;k;ky; dks e`R;q n.M dk fdlh fof’k”V dksfV ds n.M ls izfrLFkkiu dk vf/kdkj ugha] fd dfFkr dksfV dks ifjgkj ds mi;kstu ls ijs j[kk tk, & ;g Hkh vuqKs; ugha fd okLrfod dkjkokl dh vkKkid vof/k dks vuqca/k djs] tks fd /kkjk 433A] n.M izfØ;k ds vUrxZr fofgr ls vlaxr gks & pfpZrA ¼izLrj 58 ls 75½
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.48 OF 2014
1. This Writ Petition has been placed before the Constitution Bench pursuant to reference made by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in its order dated 25.04.2014, 2014(11) SCC 1, hereinafter referred to as the Referral Order.
Background Facts:-
2. On the night of 21.05.1991 Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India was assassinated by a human bomb at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu. With him fifteen persons including nine policemen died and forty three persons suffered injuries. Crime No.329 of 1991 of Sriperumbudur Police Station was immediately registered. On 22.05.1991 a notification was issued by the Governor of Tamil Nadu under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (Act No.25 of 1946) according consent to the extension of the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu for the investigation of the offences in relation to Crime No.329 of 1991. This was followed by a notification issued by the Government of India on 23.05.1991 under Section 5 read with Section 6 of Act No.25 of 1946 extending such powers and jurisdiction to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu for investigation of offences relating to Crime No. 329 of 1991. After due investigation, a charge of conspiracy for offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA for short), Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Arms Act, 1959, Passport Act, 1967, Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 was laid against forty-one persons, twelve of whom were already dead and three were marked as absconding. Remaining twenty six persons faced the trial before the Designated Court which found them guilty of all the charges and awarded punishment of fine of varying amounts, rigorous imprisonment of different periods and sentenced all of them to death. The Designated Court referred the case to this Court for confirmation of death sentence of all the convicts. The convicts also filed appeals against their conviction and the sentence awarded to them. These cases were heard together.
3. In the aforesaid Death Reference Cases and the appeals, this Court rendered its judgment on 11.05.1999, reported in State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and others 1999 (5) SCC 253. At the end of the judgment, the following order was passed by this Court:
“732. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court of the offences of Section 3(3), Section 3(4) and Section 5 of the TADA Act are set aside in respect of all those appellants who were found guilty by the trial court under the said counts.
733. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court of the offences under Sections 212 and 216 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 12 of the Passport Act and Section 6(1-A) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, in respect of those accused who were found guilty of those offences, are confirmed. If they have already undergone the period of sentence under those counts it is for the jail authorities to release such of those against whom no other conviction and sentence exceeding the said period have been passed.
734. The conviction for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 302 Indian Penal Code as against A-1 (Nalini), A-2 (Santhan @ Raviraj), A-3 (Murugan @ Thas), A-9 (Robert Payas), A-10 (Jayakumar), A-16 (Ravichandran @ Ravi) and A-18 (Perarivalan @ Arivu) is confirmed.
735. We set aside the conviction and sentence of the offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B passed by the trial court on the remaining accused.
736. The sentence of death passed by the trial court on A-1 (Nalini), A-2 (Santhan), A-3 (Murugan) and A-18 (Arivu) is confirmed. The death sentence passed on A-9 (Robert), A-10 (Jayakumar)
State through Superintendent of Police
Suthendraraja alias Suthenthira Raja alias Santhan and others vs. State through DSP/CBI, SIT
L.K. Venkat v. Union of India and others (2012) 5 SCC 292.
V. Sriharan @ Murugan v. Union of India and others 2014 (4) SCC 242.
Mohd. Aslam alias Bhure v. Union of India and others (2003)4 SCC 1.
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay (1961) 1 SCR 497.
Kehar Singh and another v. Union of India and another (1989) 1 SCC 204.
Epuru Sudhakar and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & ors (2006) 8 SCC 161.
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others v. State of Punjab 1955 (2) SCR 225.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh and others (1976) 3 SCC 470.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ajit Singh and others (1976) 3 SCC 616.
Hanumant Dass v. Vinay Kumar and others (1982) 2 SCC 177.
Govt. of A.P. and others v. M.T. Khan (2004) 1 SCC 616.
G.V. Ramanaiah v. The Superintendent of Central Jail Rajahmundry & ors (1974) 3 SCC 531.
Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra & ors (2010) 5 SCC 246.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties and another v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 580.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569.
Maru Ram etc. etc. v. Union of India & Another (1981)1 SCC 106.
Sangeet and another. v. State of Haryana (2013)2 SCC 452.
Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2013)3 SCC 294.
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra thr. CBI
L&T McNeil Ltd. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2001) 3 SCC 170.
State of U.P. & another v. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714.
State of Uttar Pradesh & ors v. Rakesh Kumar Keshari & anr (2011) 5 SCC 341.
Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna and others (2013) 3 SCC 117.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & ors v. Union of India (1993)4 SCC 441.
State of Gujarat and another v. Justice R.A. Mehta(Retd.) and others (2013) 3 SCC 1.
State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
Lalu Prasad Yadav and another v. State of Bihar and another (2010) 5 SCC 1.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Ram (2003) 7 SCC 121.
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The State of Maharashtra and others (1961) 3 SCR 440.
State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh and others 2007(13) SCC 606.
Laxman Naskar Vs. Union of India and others (2000) 2 SCC 595.
Dalbir Singh & others v. State of Punjab (1979) 3 SCC 745.
Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. (1979) 3 SCC 646.
Vikram Singh @ Vicky & another v. Union of India and others AIR 2015 SC 3577.
Prem Chand Garg & anr v. Excise Commissioner
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & another 1998 (4) SCC 409.
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India and others 2014(11) SCC 477.
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others (2005) 6 SCC 281.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.