LAWS(SC)-2023-1-34

JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On January 13, 2023
JASWANT SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the convicts and undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment in view of the order dtd. 13/2/2015 passed by this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1348-49 of 2015, confirming the judgement and order dtd. 10/5/2013 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in Criminal Appeal No. 933/2010 (arising out of Sessions Case No. 16/2006), have invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents for presenting the case of the petitioners to the sentencing Court for fresh consideration.

(2.) The present petitioners along with other co-accused having been charged for the offences under Sec. 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 of IPC and Sec. 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Corruption Act) were tried and found guilty for the said offences by the Special Judge (SC, ST), Durg, in Special Case No. 16/2006, were sentenced to life imprisonment. It was alleged against them that all the accused, 8 in number, had constituted an unlawful assembly and had killed Kartikram and Puneet using deadly weapons like sword, axe, wooden stick etc.

(3.) The petitioner no.1 Jaswant Singh, aged about 63 years; petitioner no.2 Ajay, aged about 43 years and petitioner no. 3 Naresh, aged about 57 years on their undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for about 16 years without remission (with remission about 21 years of imprisonment) had submitted their respective applications under Sec. 432(2) of Cr.PC to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg seeking their premature release. The Jail Superintendent sought an opinion of the concerned Sessions Court which had convicted the petitioners. The Special Judge, Durg, Chhattisgarh vide the letters dtd. 2/7/2021, 10/8/2021 and 1/10/2021 respectively gave his opinion stating inter alia that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not appropriate to allow remission of the remaining sentence of the said petitioners.