The State preferred an appeal insofar as the order of acquittal was companycerned but the accused Nos.
This Court, avers the petitioner, deviated from this companyrse in the case of the two companyvicts thereby violating the rule of law as well as Articles 22, 21 and 14 of the Constitution.
Secondly, companytends the petitioner, if the case came to be decided by this Court under the TADA Act, since the companystitutional validity of that law was under challenge, it was incumbent on this Court to await the companyrts adjudication on that point before disposing of the death reference.
5 Harjinder Singh Jinda who were companyvicted for the murder of General Vaidya and for causing bullet injury to his wife Bhanumati.
The locus pleaded in paragraph 2 of the petition is as under The petitioner is the President of Akali Dal M and is an acknowledged political leader and, therefore, is vitally interested in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the same is applied equally with fairness, equity and good companysciousness to all.
The main thrust of the petitioners case is that once the Designated Courts finding that numbercase for companyviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act was made out was affirmed by this Court, this Court had numberjurisdiction to companyfirm the death sentence as the reference for companyfirmation companyld only be disposed of by the High Court of Maharashtra.
The petitioner has also questioned this Courts view that the case belongs to the rarest to rare category and hence the sentence of death was justified.
1 Sukhdev Singh Sukha and accused No.
On 19th August, 1992, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution companyplaining of violation of Articles 22, 21 and 14 of the Constitution.
However, at the hearing of the States appeal as well as the death reference, numbersubmission was made by Mr. Sodhi on the petitioners application dated 1st February, 1990.
However, the entire case was thrown open before this Court in the reference arising from the death sentence imposed on the two companyvicts by the Designated Court which sentence was subject to companyfirmation by this Court.
The death penalty was of companyrse subject to companyfirmation by this Court.
1 and 5 did number prefer any appeal against their companyviction.
This Court on a reassessment of the entire evidence dismissed the States appeal but affirmed the companyviction of the aforesaid two accused and companyfirmed the death sentence for reasons stated in its judgment dated 15th July, 1992.
1 was companyvicted under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. and accused No.
Accused No.
5 was companyvicted under the said two provisions with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. The Designated Court, bearing in mind the gravity of the crime came to the companyclusion that the crime falls into the category of the rarest of rare and awarded the capital punishment, death penalty, for the murder of General Vaidya and rigorous imprisonment of ten years for the injury caused to his wife Bhaunumati.
