9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition under Article 32 of the Constitution questioning the legality and validity of their conviction and sentence by the Designated Court, Pune and the confirmation thereof by this Court by its judgment rendered on July 15, 1992, See : State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh 1992CriLJ3454 . Though it is stated in the petition that it is being filed 'on behalf of the aforesaid two convicts it is clarified in paragraph 4 thereof that the said convicts 'have given oral and written instructions that none of their relations should file any petition seeking justice or mercy for them'. It is, therefore, clear that this petition is not filed on instructions given by the two convicts or at their behest. The petition is strongly opposed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if so minded, have raised the contention in the earlier proceedings but a third party, a total stranger to the trial commenced against the two convicts, cannot be permitted to question the correctness of the conviction recorded against them. If that were permitted any and every person could challenge convictions recorded day in and day out by courts even if the persons convicted do not desire to do so and are inclined to acquiesce in the decision. We, therefore, took the view that neither the provisions of the CrPC, 1973 nor any other statute permitted a third party stranger to question the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court after a regular trial. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by any order has the right to seek redress by questioning the legality, validity or correctness of the order, unless such party is a minor, an insane person or is suffering from any other disability which the law recognises as sufficient to permit another person, e.g. next friend, to move the Court on his behalf. If a guardian or a next friend initiates proceedings for and on behalf of such a disabled aggrieved party, it is in effect proceedings initiated by the party aggrieved and not by a total stranger who has no direct personal stake in the outcome thereof. We are afraid these observation do not permit a mere friend like the petitioner to initiate the proceedings of the present nature under Article 32 of the Constitution. The obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt on the mere ground that the convicts had acted under such an obsession. Such a submission, urged the learned Additional Solicitor General, is fraught with grave consequences and would, we agree, shake the very foundation of the rule of law on which a civilised society is based if the aggrieved person is allowed to take the law in his own hands and later plead disability on the ground that his action emanated from an acute obsession that his victim had by his action forfeited the right to live and deserved to be punished with death. Such a submission cannot be countenanced. 4. Lastly it was submitted that this case differed from the earlier case because the petitioner has come as a next friend. He also submitted that the sentiments of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
