LexREMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN versus BANI KANT DAS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. . [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 957- REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN A ··~ v. BANI KANT DAS AND ORS. Review Petition (C) No. 1378 of 2009 IN Writ Petition (C) No. 457 of 2005 8 NOVEMBER 19, 2010 [AFTAB ALAM AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Article~ 137 and 145 - C Review - Scope of, by Supreme Court - Discussed - Supreme Court Rules, 1966- Part VIII, Order XL- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XL VII, Rule 1. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993- ss. 2(d), 3 and 0 12 ... Jurisdiction of NHRC - Held: The NHRC has been constituted to inquire into cases of violation of and for protection and promotion of human rights - This power is an extensive one - Such action includes inquiring into cases where a party has been denied the protection of any law to E which he is entitled, whether by a private party, a public institution, the government or even the Courts of law - Definition of 'human rights' in the 1993 Act has been designedly kept very broad to encompass within it all the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India F . - On facts, from its order, it is revealed that NHRC was aware that a review petition was filed against the judgment of this Court, in addition to a mercy petition filed before the Governor of Assam - NHRC did not commit any illegality by taking into G .consideration the article written by a Law Professor and then making a mere recommendation to the Governor, for considering the petitioner's plea for commutation - In doing ... 957 . Hj 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A so, NHRC acted within its jurisdiction - Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 72 and 161 - Rights 8 of the petitioner to seek commutation - Scope of judicial review in respect of exercise of power by the Governor under Article 161, or by the President under Article 72 - Discussed - Held: While exercising power of commuta·tion under Article 161, the Governor is to act on the aid and advice of the C Council of Ministers - In view of the consistent view of two Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court clearly stating that unless the exercise of power by the Governor under Article 161, is ex facie perverse or is based on a rule of thumb, the Court should not interfere for mere non-disclosure of 0 reason, the finding to the contrary in the judgment under review, is vifjafed by errors apparent on the face of the record - In the instant case, the record shows that upon a detailed consideration of the relevant facts, the Governor exercised his power of commutation - The Governor considered, apart from the recommendation of NHRC, other relevant materials also E and, therefore, the order of the Governor is not vitiated in as much as it is not solely based on the recommendations of NHRC- Order of the Governor passed under Article 161 of the Constitution restored and the order of commutation of death sentence awarded to the petitioner to one · of life F imprisonment stands. The trial court held the petitioner guilty of murdering four members of a family and that all the charges under Sections 302, 323, 325 and 326 of IPC against him were G proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial court also opined that the crime fell within the category of 'rarest of rare cases' and the petitioner deserved death penalty. However, the defence raised the plea that at the time of commission of the crime, the petitioner was below 16 H years of age. To determine the actual age of the petitioner, REMDEO CHAUHAN @ RAJNATH CHAUHAN v. 959 BANI KANT DAS Dr.'S', an Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine of A Guwahati Medical College, with a team of doctors, examined him. The trial Court, after considering the medical evidence about the ·age of the petitioner along with the ~~idence of the father of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the accused could not be below 8 sixteen years of age at the time of alleged occurrence to · attract the provisions of Juvenile Ju~tice Act, 1986. On appeal by the petitioner, the High Court , confirmed the conviction arid sentence of death against C the petitioner. The appeal from the High Court judgment was dismissed by a Bench of the Supreme Court and the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.