SUMANBAI ALIAS SHEKHAR MAHIRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent no.2 dated 31.3.2008. The petitioner also prays for recommending to the respondent no.2 the case of the petitioner as a case fit for considering remission of sentence as prayed by the petitioner in the clemency petition.

(2.) Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this petition may be stated thus:- A charge-sheet for offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be filed against the petitioner and the petitioner was tried for the said offences in Sessions Case No.70 of 1994. The petitioner came to be convicted by the judgment of the Trial Court dated 25.3.1996 in Sessions Case No.70 of 1994. The Trial Court, however, acquitted the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 oaf the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar. The petitioner being thus aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court filed Criminal Appeal No.151 of 1996. The appeal came to be dismissed by this Court by its judgment dated 6.7.2005. A petition for special leave to appeal also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30.9.2005. The petitioner thereafter filed a clemency petition before respondent no.2 and urged various grounds on the merits of the matter. In addition thereto, in the clemency petition at paragraph 7 the petitioner urged (i) that her husband was 70 years of age and was bedridden with heart ailment and high blood pressure and to some extent was hard of hearing with faltering eye-sight; (ii) there was no one to look after and take care of the husband of the petitioner and (iii) apart from the petitioner no other person was available to take care of her husband and give him medicine and medical treatment from time to time. It appears that a communication was received by the petitioner informing her that her clemency petition after careful consideration came to be rejected by the second respondent. The aforesaid communication is dated 31.3.2008. The petitioner by communication dated 17.4.2008 sought a detailed order/judgment. It appears that no detailed or a reasoned order came to be passed by the second respondent. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition.

(3.) Mr Joydeep Chatterji, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the order of the second respondent dismissing the clemency petition is a cryptic order, which is bereft of any reasons. Therefore, it was urged before us that this is a fit case where this Court should either allow the clemency petition or remit the matter back to the respondent no.2 for a decision afresh. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that judgment of Supreme Court in Epuru Sudhakar & anr. vs. Govt. of A.P. & ors., AIR 2006 S.C. 3385.