Undaunted by the rejection of his earlier clemency motion, shri Doodh Nath ventured to present a second petition for the same purpose within a period of about five months, that too on almost the same grounds which were number found favour with the Governor on the earlier occasion.
It is the case of the appellant that Doodh Nath did number even mention in his second petition for pardon that an earlier petition for the same purpose was rejected by the Governor.
He was companyvicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with some other persons who too were involved in the same offence.
The police officials whose report was called for in companynection with the companysideration of the second application for grant of remission sent up a report which was unfavourable to Doodh Nath.
That necessitated the appellant to reach this Court with this appeal by special leave.
That step of the Constitutional functionary was far beyond the tolerance capacity of the bereaved members of the family of deceased Joginder Singh and hence his son the present appellant moved the Allahabad High Court challenging the aforesaid action of the Governor.
On 4.1.1991, the widow of Joginder Singh mother of the present appellant made a representation to the Governor pointing out facts which she companysidered relevant for rejecting the clemency petition.
A division bench of the High Court, which heard his writ petition dismissed it on the premise that a decision of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India is number justiciable.
On 9.2.1991, the Governor passed the impugned order under Article 161 of the Constitution in the following terms The Governor of Uttar Pradesh under the special circumstances by exercising the power under Article 161 of the Constitution of remaining sentence of the companyvict Doodh Nath, son of Shri Deoraj, resident of Khairuddinpur, P.S.In fact, the same Governor had, on an earlier occasion on 7.6.1990 dismissed a petition filed by shri Doodh Nath for grant of reprieve and remission of the sentence passed on him by the Court in the very same case of murder of Joginder Singh.
His appeal to the High Court and Special Leave petition to this Court did number give any help to extricate himself from the penal clutches of the offence.
But within a period of less than two years, he succeeded in escaping from prison as the Governor of Uttar Pradesh granted remission of the remaining long period of his life sentence.
He was unseated as a sequel to the said companyviction and his wife succeeded in becoming his successor in the same companystituency.
But the same police officials after one week, forwarded another report companytaining recommendation for remitting the sentence as prayed for by Doodh Nath on humanitarian grounds.
When he moved for remission on the second occasion, he was out on parole.
Shri Doodh Nath was an M.L.A. of the U.P. Assembly when he was companyvicted of the offence of murder.
That and many other relevant materials were number posted before the Governor when he companysidered the question of granting reprieve to the companyvict, according to the appellant.
Thomas, J. Shri Doodh Nath, third respondent in this appeal, was found guilty of murdering one Joginder Singh.
Appellant alleged that when Governor passed the order granting remission of sentence Shri Doodh Nath was already accused in five other criminal cases involving serious offences.
