9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Age determination of the petitioner at the time of the crime. 2. Validity of the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 3. Jurisdiction and recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). 4. Validity of the Governor's order of commutation of the death sentence. 5. Scope and extent of judicial review in criminal proceedings, especially concerning clemency powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution. 6. Applicability of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended by the 2006 amendment. Detailed Analysis: 1. Age Determination of the Petitioner: The defense claimed that the petitioner was below 16 years of age at the time of the crime. The Trial Court, relying on the medical examination by Dr. Bhushan Chandra Roy and the evidence of the petitioner's father, concluded that the petitioner was above 20 years old at the time of the crime. This finding was not challenged in the High Court or the initial appeal to the Supreme Court. 2. Validity of the Death Sentence: The Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of murder and other charges under Sections 302, 323, 325, and 326 of IPC, categorizing the crime as a 'rarest of rare cases' deserving the death penalty. This was upheld by the High Court and initially by the Supreme Court. However, in a review petition, Justice Thomas dissented, suggesting that the death sentence should be reconsidered due to the uncertainty about the petitioner's age. 3. Jurisdiction and Recommendations of NHRC: NHRC recommended the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment based on the opinion of Justice Thomas. The Supreme Court initially held that NHRC had no jurisdiction to make such recommendations. However, upon review, it was concluded that NHRC had the jurisdiction under Section 12(j) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as it pertains to the promotion and protection of human rights. 4. Validity of the Governor's Order of Commutation: The Governor of Assam commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment based on NHRC's recommendation. The Supreme Court initially quashed this order, citing a lack of reasons. Upon review, it was found that detailed consideration was made by the Chief Minister's Secretariat and the Governor's Secretariat, which provided adequate reasons for the commutation. 5. Scope and Extent of Judicial Review in Criminal Proceedings: The Supreme Court discussed its power of review under Article 137 of the Constitution, emphasizing that review in criminal proceedings is permissible to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court cited several precedents to affirm that judicial review could be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice. 6. Applicability of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000: The petitioner argued that the Juvenile Justice Act, as amended in 2006, should apply to his case, which was not initially raised in the review petition. The Supreme Court refrained from pronouncing on this issue in the review petition, allowing the petitioner to raise it in appropriate proceedings before the relevant forum. Conclusion: 1. The Supreme Court set aside its judgment dated 8.5.2009. 2. The Governor's order commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment was restored. 3. NHRC was held to have jurisdiction to make the recommendation for commutation. 4. The review petition was allowed to the extent indicated, and parties were left to bear their own costs.
|
