Another convict in the Bilkis Bano case has asked the Supreme Court to review his January 8 verdict revoking the remission of his sentence, arguing that it cannot be challenged based on the nature of the crime and the “society’s cry for justice”.
The review plea filed by Ramesh Rupabhai Chandana contends that the top court erred in passing the impugned order and setting aside the May 13, 2022 judgment passed by another bench of the apex court.
The Gujarat government and two of the 11 convicts have already filed a petition seeking review of the January 8 verdict, which revoked the remission orders of all of them and asked them to surrender.
The plea listed reasons for seeking review of the judgment and stated that the top court had erred in its judgment “on the ground that the remission order passed by the competent authority cannot be challenged on factual grounds, including due to the nature of the crime.” impact on society and society’s cry for justice after the conviction and sentence become final in the eyes of the law.”
It said while dismissing the order dated May 13, 2022, passed by a co-ordinate of this court, which allowed the Government of Gujarat to grant remission in accordance with the 1992 policy, the impugned order dated January 8 was contrary to the doctrine of courtesy of Courts.
The doctrine of Comity of Courts refers to courts respecting the laws and decisions of other courts.
It was stated in the plea that in the present case only the trial was transferred (to Maharashtra) under ‘extraordinary circumstances’ by way of judicial intervention and it is a fact clearly evident from the record that in the transfer petition in question the question of remission was not the issue at hand.
“Therefore, it is not just and fair to assume that by virtue of the said transfer order, the appropriate government under Section 432(7) CrPC would also have been changed to that of the transferring state,” the report said.
The plea further said that the remission policies of Gujarat and Maharashtra, when compared both at the time of transfer and subsequent conviction, can be considered favorable and prejudicial respectively.
“That is, as the policy of Gujarat fixing 14 years as the criteria for eligibility for remission is beneficial to the petitioner and on the other hand 28 years for the same as the policy of Maharashtra is detrimental to him,” it said report. .
Earlier, Radheyshaym Bhagwandas Shah and Rajubhai Babulal Soni, both lodged in Godhra sub-jail after the court’s verdict on January 8, filed the review plea.
On January 8, the Supreme Court annulled the remission it had granted to 11 convicts in the high-profile gang rape case of Bilkis Bano and the murder of her seven family members. his discretion.
It ordered all convicts, who were released early on Independence Day in 2022, back to prison within two weeks.
The apex court slammed the Gujarat government, saying it had “usurped” the power of the Maharashtra government to grant remission to the convicts.
It quashed the May 13, 2022 judgment of another bench of the apex court, which had directed the Gujarat government to consider the remission petitions of the 11 convicts in the case, saying the judgment was obtained by “playing fraud in court”.
(Only the headline and image of this report may have been reworked by Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is automatically generated from a syndicated feed.)
First print: March 18, 2024 | 7:04 PM IST