Mukta Gupta, J. - (1.)Petitioner Sanjay Kumar Valmiki was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302/376(2)(f)/363/201 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with stipulation of a minimum period of 25 years of incarceration without remission. This Court in appeal though held that the learned Trial Court could not have awarded such a sentence, in terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench reported as (2016) 7 SCC 1 Union of India vs. V.Sriharan, however, awarded the same sentence.
(2.)Petitioner Chandra Kant Jha was convicted in three different FIRs for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and in two of the FIRs, he was awarded sentence of death by the learned Trial Court, subject to confirmation by this Court. The two appeals filed by Chandra Kant Jha and the Reference by the State, were disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 27th January, 2016 returning the findings as under:- "118. In light of the aforesaid factum and balancing out of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we feel that the present case would fall in the category wherein the extreme sentence of death by capital punishment would not be justified and at the same time possibility of award of remission and release of Chandra Kant Jha on completion of sentence of 14 years or even thereafter, would be inadequate and parlous. The heinous and outrageous crime involving inhumane behaviour and torture, must be emphatically and adequately punished. This case falls in the third category, beyond application of remission. 119. In light of the above, whilst not confirming the death sentence proposed by the trial court, we award punishment of life imprisonment with a direction that Chandra Kant Jha would not be released on remission for remainder of his natural life. This direction would not affect the power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India. This we fell would be appropriate and the proportionate sentence in the present case. The appeal and the death reference are accordingly disposed of."
(3.)In W.P.(CRL) 2049/2012 Sanjay Kumar Valmiki sought furlough from the respondent which was declined, hence he filed the writ petition. From the nominal roll of the petitioner it was evident that the petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/376(2)(g)/363/201 IPC and was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with the condition that no remission would be granted for a period of 25 years. All the sentences were to run concurrently. The issue thus arose whether a convict who has been awarded imprisonment for life with direction that no remissions will be granted for a period of 25 years can be granted furlough. In W.P.(CRL) 682/2019 Chandra Kant Jha had sought parole from the GNCTD which was declined vide the communication dated 25th January, 2019. Hence he filed the writ petition challenging the said order seeking parole. From the nominal roll of Chandra Kant Jha it was evident that he was awarded sentence of death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, however the same was not confirmed by this Court in the Reference and instead this Court awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with the direction that the convict shall not be released on remission for remainder of his natural life except for the exercise of power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India. Though this Court granted parole to the petitioner Chandra Kant Jha, however, in view of the legal issue required to be decided, this Court vide order dated 1st April, 2019 directed the Director General (Prisons) to indicate as to how a convict who has been sentenced to life imprisonment with the stipulation that he would not be released on remission for the remainder of his natural life, could be granted furlough. As per the nominal roll, Chandra Kant Jha was granted four furloughs in the year 2017 and three in the year 2018. Affidavit and written submissions were thus filed by the respondent and written submissions by learned counsels for the petitioners. Since a common question of law arose in the two petitions, the same were heard together.