- (1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed for direction to convert the sentence of the petitioner from 30 years in jail without remission to a sentence of life imprisonment; and further to declare that this Court is not competent to fix a particular number of years (with or without remission) when it commutes the death sentence to life imprisonment while upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC').
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that: A. The petitioner alongwith co -accused was charged for killing 4 persons on the intervening night of 20/21.8.2000 and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 27.1.2005/5.2.2005 convicted and awarded death sentence to him alongwith co -accused Jaj Singh. B. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 22.9.2006 dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the death sentence reference made by the trial court so far as the petitioner and the co -accused are concerned. C. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said judgment and order dated 22.9.2006 by filing the criminal appeal and this Court vide judgment and order dated 7.2.2013 affirmed the conviction. However, the death sentence was converted into life imprisonment with a direction that the petitioner shall serve 30 years in jail without remission. The aforesaid decision is reported in Gurvail Singh @ Gala and Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2013) 2 SCC 713. D. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a review petition, which was also dismissed. Hence, the writ petition. Shri Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that this Court lacks the power to issue directions that convicts shall serve a particular minimum sentence with or without remission when death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment. Such an argument is being advanced in view of the judgment of this Court in Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452, wherein a two Judge Bench of this Court while dealing with the issue considered the earlier judgments and observed: "55. A reading of some recent decisions delivered by this Court seems to suggest that the remission power of the appropriate Government has effectively been nullified by awarding sentences of 20 years, 25 years and in some cases without any remission. Is this permissible? Can this Court (or any Court for that matter) restrain the appropriate Government from granting remission of a sentence to a convict? What this Court has done in Swamy Shraddananda (2) @ Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 and several other cases, by giving a sentence in a capital offence of 20 years or 30 years imprisonment without remission, is to effectively injunct the appropriate Government from exercising its power of remission for the specified period. In our opinion, this issue needs further and greater discussion, but as at present advised, we are of the opinion that this is not permissible. The appropriate Government cannot be told that it is prohibited from granting remission of a sentence. Similarly, a convict cannot be told that he cannot apply for a remission in his sentence, whatever the reason."
(3.) THE issue involved herein has been raised before this Court time and again. Two Judge as well as three Judge Bench have several times explained the powers of this Court in this regard and it has consistently been held that the Court cannot interfere with the clemency powers enshrined under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India or any Rule framed thereunder except in exceptional circumstances. So far as the remissions etc. are concerned, these are executive powers of the State under which, the Court may issue such directions if required in the facts and circumstances of a particular case.;