Noting that the power to grant remission is exclusively that of the State government and not the judiciary, the Supreme Court refrained itself from allowing any reprieve to four convicts who have served 25 years of their life sentence for the murder of an elderly couple in Kolkata in 1991.
A Bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and A.M. Sapre acknowledged, in its recent judgment, that the convicts have suffered incarceration for more than 25 years and, therefore, there should be a chance for remission of further prison sentence.
But the court declined to intervene, simply observing that “this is a power which can be exercised by the State.”
The judgment is in sync with the Tamil Nadu government’s review petition on the question of who has the actual authority — the Centre or the State — in granting remission for life convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
Tamil Nadu has sought a review of the Constitution Bench verdict in the high-profile case, arguing that the State government and its officials are the most competent to decide whether a life term convict deserves to be granted remission.
Bats for Centre
The Constitution Bench had held that the Centre and not the State enjoyed “primacy” in deciding whether the seven life convicts in the former Prime Minister’s assassination case should be granted remission.
Double murder
The present double murder case occurred in December 1991 when an elderly couple, Girish and Bina Navalkha, was found murdered at its apartment. The convicts were arrested within a few days, and one of them turned approver. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder. The Calcutta High Court confirmed the decision, following which, one of them, Khokan Giri, moved the apex court in appeal. Giri was a servant of the couple’s neighbour.
Uncorroborated version
One of the main arguments put forth by Giri’s lawyers was that the entire prosecution theory was built upon the uncorroborated version of the approver, Raju Rao. They argued that an approver’s word cannot be accepted as evidence unless supported by independent corroborative evidence in material particulars.
The Supreme Court dismissed the argument, pointing to forensic and material evidence on record, including fingerprints and articles recovered from the convicts who had stolen them from the victims’ flat.
