PARKASHO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner' husband Banwari was murdered by the second and third respondents. They were tried under Section 802 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C; by the Sessions Judge, Meerut. By his judgment dated 5th November 1960 he sentenced them to death. They preferred am appeal against their conviction and sentence to this Court. Their appeal was dismissed on February 2, 1961 and' the sentence of death was confirmed by the Court. During the course of arguments on appeal it appears that their counsel also tried to impress upon the court the advisability of commuting the sentence of death to a sentence of life imprisonment. The court refused to do so, because it found no extenuating feature. They then presented a petition to the Governor for commuting their sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The Governor, by his order dated April 22, 1961 commuted the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. This petition is directed against the said order of the Governor.

(2.) The relief claimed in the petition is that the Court should issue a writ in the mature of Mandamus commanding the State of U. P. through its Chief Secretary to execute the order of the High Court regarding the sentence of death and treat the order of the Governor dated April 22, 1961 as a nullity.

(3.) At the outset I would like to observe that the petitioner does not appear to me to possess requisite standing to move the Court. A person may invoke the aid of the Court under Article 228 of the Constitution for the enforcement of his or her fundamental rights or "for any other purpose1" The expression within quotation marks would suggest that the aid of the Court may also be invoked by a person for the protection of his or her ordinary legal rights, interests and privileges or for the prevention of legal wrongs or injuries to him or her. The impugned order does not" appear to me to violate or threaten to violate any right, interest or privilege of the petitioner, it does not also cause or threaten to cause any wrong or injury to her. She cannot accordingly invoke the aid of the Court under Article 226. No doubt the aforesaid respondents killed her husband; she was also a prosecution witness to the murder case. But these two circumstances do not lend her requisite interest to apply under Article 226 for the quashing of the impugned order.