LexBANI KANTA DAS AND ANR. versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- [2009] 8 S.C.R. 499 BANI KANTA DAS AND ANR. v. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 457 of 2005) MAY 8 , 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Sentence/Sentencing: Commutation of death sentence A B to life imprisonment by the Governor - No reason indicated C in the order which was passed on recommendation of NHRC - Writ petition under Article 32 challenging order of Governor - Held: NHRC proceedings were not in line with the procedure prescribed under the 1993 Act - That being so, recommendations by NHRC was non est - Moreover said D order did not indicate reasons - Governor's order is set aside - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32. Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of E India was filed challenging the order of Governor of Assam, commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment when the accused was held guilty of heinous crime of brutally killing four persons of a family. He was awarded death sentence which was confirmed by this court and review thereagainst was also dismissed. The order of commutation was passed on recommendation of NHRC. Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. In the documents filed before this Court by NHRC, the name of victim was stated and cause of action was stated to be the date of judgment of this Court i.e. 31.7.2000. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 was F G 499 H 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. c A enacted for constitution of NHRC for better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith or . incidental thereto. Section 17 in Chapter IV deals with inquiry into complaints regarding violation of human rights. Obviously, th'ere have to be atleast two persons B involved. One whose human rights have been violated and the other who has violated the human rights. [Para 7 and 8] [504-C-G] 2. The NHRC proceedings were not in line with the c procedure prescribed under the Act. That being so, the recommendations, if any, by the NHRC are non est. [Para 14) [505-G-H; 506-A] 3. The State of Assam indicated that not only the recommendations of NHRC but several other aspects D were take note of. But the order directing commutation did not indicate any reason. Absence of any obligation to convey the reasons would not mean that there should not be legitimate or relevant reasons for passing the order. Apparently, in the instant case that was not done. E The impugned order of commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment is set aside and direction is passed to reconsider the application filed by the accused for commutation of sentence. [Para 15 and 16) [506-A-E] F Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC G H 161, relied on. Case Law Reference: (2006) s sec 1s1 relied on Para 15 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 457 of 2005. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. - ' t BANI KANTA DAS AND ANR. v. STATE OF ASSAM 501 AND ORS. Manish Goswami and Map & Co. for the Appellant. A Avijit Roy (for M/s. Corporate Law Group), Vijay Panjwani, Shobha, J.B. Prakash and Puja Sharma for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by Smt. Jayanti Das w/o Late Jay Ram Das and Shri Bani Kanta Das S/o Late Jay Ram Das. Challenge in the writ petition is to the legality of the order passed by the Governor of Assam, conveyed by the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of Assam. By the said order the Governor of Assam had directed to commute the sentence of death awarded to one Rajnath Chauhan @ Ramdeo Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') to that of life imprisonment. The death sentence awarded to the convict by the trial Court was confirmed by the Guwahati High Court and was upheld by this Court. 2. It is basically submitted that no reason has been . indicated to direct such commutation and apparently the order of commutation had its foundation on recommendations made by the National Human Rights Commission (in short the 'NHRC). 3. It is basically stated that no reason was indicated as to -- why the Governor decided to commute the death sentence to that of life imprisonment when the accused was guilty of heinous, abominable crime where a family was massacred, and considering the nature of crime the death
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.