M A I N   N E W S

Pardon to lifers by Haryana surprises SC
S S Negi
Legal Correspondent

Lifers granted pardon because there was “error in the trial court judgement” Co-accused had been acquitted Convict’s father is old and his daughter marriageable The convict was a diabetic patient Strong recommendation of village panchayats

New Delhi, April 1
The Supreme Court has taken exception to the flimsy grounds made by the previous Chautala government in its recommendations to the Governor for granting pardon to 13 life convicts and ordering their pre-mature release.

A Bench of Justices H. K. Sema and V. S. Sirpurkar expressed surprise how the government could say that there was error in the trial court verdict when the conviction had got finality with the Supreme Court judgements and what role village panchayats had in recommending the grant of pardon to a convicted person.

The documents pertaining to their release, submitted to the apex court last week, showed that in one case the then INLD government had mentioned that there was “error in trial court judgement” therefore, the convicted accused should be granted pardon by the Governor, in four cases it had stated that village panchayats had “strongly recommended” that they should be released from jail.

In one case the government had said since the co-accused had been acquitted it was a valid ground for his release of the convicted person also. In another case the old age of convict’s father and marriageable age of his daughter was cited as the reasons for recommending the grant of pardon merely after he had undergone the sentence of 3 years.

Even when the Supreme Curt had rejected the appeals of a convict in the case, the state government still persisted in its recommendation to the Governor that he was falsely implicated for the murder of his wife by his father-in-law. In yet another case, it had been stated that since the case was of religious nature, the convict, who was diabetic patient, should be pardoned.

All 13 convicts granted pardon between 1999 and 2000 had now been made party by the apex court in two PILs, challenging the grant of pardon to them by the then Haryana Governor on “baseless and frivolous” grounds.

All of them had been issued notices by the court, seeking their replies why their pre-mature release should not be cancelled.

Interestingly, in the case of the two lifers, pardoned on the so-called “strong recommendation” of the village panchayats, the release order was passed after they had not even completed the sentence of three years.