- (1.) Petitioner is said to be an organization to prosecute those persons who killed the innocent persons and to defend those persons who have been falsely implicated in the cases because of political vendetta. Petitioner has claimed the following relief in the present petition: (ii) for issuance of a writ, order or direction with the prayer to give directions to the respondents to issue the directions to respondent No. 5 to give directions to all the Presiding Officers of the Trial Courts in the respective States where the sentences of two or more accused was same in the Trial Court and in case of appeal the sentence of one or any of the accused is reduced in the Appellate Court and the benefit of the same sentence be given to all other accused who had not filed the appeal before the Appellate Court so that the non appealing convict may not undergo the sentence thus who have not filed the appeal and collect the information of such like cases from the respective Superintendents of Jails in both the two states as well as the U.T., Chandigarh Administration. It is further prayed that directions be issued to Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh to issue similar warrants as far as Balwant Singh s/o Malkiat Singh is concerned as per the warrants issued to Jagtar Singh Hawara co-accused of Balwant Singh in FIR No. CBI RC9/S/95/SIU-V/CBI/SIC.II New Delhi under Sections 120-B, 302, 207, IPC and Section 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act dated 1.9.1995. The said prayer is a consequence to an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 5.3.2012 (Annexure P/3), whereby the accused has been ordered to be executed on 31.3.2012 at 9.00 a.m in view of the sentence of death imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 31.7.2007, confirmed by this Court on 12.10.2010.
(2.) Earlier a Civil Writ Petition No. 5226 of 2012, Lawyers for Human Rights International (Regd.) vs. State of Punjab came up for hearing before this Court on 22.3.2012 which was dismissed for the reason that the third person has no locus standi to challenge the conviction of the convict. Though in the aforesaid case, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court sentencing the convicts was not produced but the same has been appended with the present writ petition. The judgment reproduces the statement made by the convict before the Division Bench of this Court. The said statement is available at pages 184 to 187 of the paper book of this petition. Some of the extract of the statement before this Court reads as under: All these acts were direct attacks (actions) on the Sikhs by Delhi congress Govt. and Indian Intelligence Agencies. The murder of said Chief Minister belonging to Congress by us was outcome (reaction) of the attacks and atrocities committed upon us. On 31st August, 1995, I was accompanying Bhai Dilawar Singh. I had tied bomb on the person of Bhai Sahib with my own hands. I do not have regret for my involvement in the said murder. I am proud of the sacrifice of Bhai Dilawar and bow my head before him in his respect. The contention of CBI that we chose 5 pm on 31st August, 1995, for the reason that we may kill maximum people, is wrong. By saying so, CBI is trying to hold us responsible for the murder of innocent people. In fact we were waiting for the Chief Minister belonging to Congress Party since 2 pm as to when he could come out. The general public was neither our target nor our motive was to kill the innocent people but our motive was to kill the murderer of innocent people. He (Beant Singh) himself was to decide the time for coming out.
(3.) Mr. Pheruman, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since, an appeal is pending at the instance of one of the convict before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution can grant benefit to the non-appealing convict, therefore, the sentence should not be executed at this stage. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Akhil Ali Jehangir ali Sayyed vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003 2 SCC 708 and Suresh Chaudhary etc. vs. State of Bihar, 2003 4 SCC 128;