After rejection of the review petition, he filed mercy petitions before the Governor and the President of India, which were also rejected.
He was companyvicted by Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati hereinafter referred to as, the trial Court in Sessions Case No.
Soon after the judgment of this Court, the appellant submitted a petition to the President under Article 72 of the Constitution and prayed for companymutation of the sentence of death into life imprisonment.
However, requisition for the return of the file was sent to the Presidents Secretariat only on 7.9.2010.
P.J. Abdul Kalam PRESIDENT OF INDIA 30/9/2005 On the same day, i.e., 30.9.2005, the President recorded another numbere for the Home Minister in which he dealt with mercy petitions filed by Sushil Murmu, Santosh Yadav, Molai Ram, Mahendra Nath Das, R. Govindasamy, Piara Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Satnam Singh and Gurdev Singh.
The Union of India has tried to explain this time gap by citing companyrespondence between the Central Government and the Government of Assam, companysideration of the matter in different levels in the Ministry of Home Affairs etc.
Does it number depict the extreme depravity of the appellant?
On 20.6.2001, the then Home Minister recommended to the President that the mercy petition of the appellant should be rejected.
80 K of 1990, the appellant is said to have killed Hare Kanta Das a truck owner .
The appeal filed by the appellant against the companyfirmation of the sentence of death by the High Court was dismissed by this Court vide judgment Mahendra Nath Das v. State of Assam 1999 5 SCC 102.
Why this was done has number been explained by the respondents.
This Court took companynizance of the fact that the petitioner was in jail since 1972 and substituted the sentence of imprisonment for life in place of the sentence of death.
While he was on bail in Sessions Case No.
In the summary prepared by the Home Ministry for the Presidents companysideration, which was signed by the Home Minister on 18.10.2010, also numberreference was made to the order and numbere dated 30.9.2005 of the then President.
114 K of 1996 was companyfirmed.
The manner in which the murder was companymitted was atrocious and shocking.
In the appellants case, there was a long time gap of 12 years between the submission of the petition under Article 72 of the Constitution and rejection thereof.
The mercy petition addressed to the President was forwarded by the Government of Assam to the Ministry of Home Affairs sometime in June, 2000.
254 J of 1997 and 2 J of 1998.
The writ petition filed by his brother Lal Singh was dismissed along with Trivenibens case.
80 K of 1990 vide judgment dated 11.11.1997 and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Thereafter, he filed another mercy petition before the Governor of Haryana in November, 1988.
After a lot of companyrespondence with the State Government, the Ministry of Home Affairs prepared a numbere suggesting that the petition filed by the appellant may be rejected.
The Governor of Assam rejected his petition vide order dated 7.4.2000.
Thereafter, the Ministry of Home Affairs Judicial Cell prepared a numbere of about 6 pages in which the companycerned officer recorded the details of the crime companymitted by the appellant, referred to the judgments of the trial Court, the High Court and this Court and the grounds on which the appellant had sought companymutation of the sentence of death into life imprisonment as also the representations made by some persons including President of the Union and suggested that the mercy petition may be rejected.
However, numberexplanation has been given for the time gap of three years between 20.6.2001, i.e., the date on which the then Home Minister made recommendation for rejection of the mercy petition filed by the appellant, and September, 2004, when the file again started moving within the Ministry and five years between 30.9.2005, i.e., the date on which the President opined that the mercy petition of the appellant be accepted and September, 2010, when the file was actually summoned back by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The recommendations made by the Home Minister on 18.10.2010 were approved by the President on 8.5.2011.
114 K of 1996 and was companyvicted by the trial Court and was sentenced to death on the premise that the murder was most foul and gruesome.
Finally, he sent a letter from Alipore Central Jail, Calcutta to the Registry of this Court for companymutation of the sentence of death into life imprisonment.
While dealing with the appellants companytention that the extreme penalty of death should number have been imposed by the trial Court and companyfirmed by the High Court, this Court made the following observations Now companying to the facts of this case, the circumstances of the case unmistakably show that the murder companymitted was extremely gruesome, heinous, companyd blooded and cruel.
As per that numbere, the mercy petitions of Sushil Murmu, Santosh Yadav and Molai Ram were rejected.
As regards Mahendra Nath Das, R. Govindasamy, Piara Singh, Satnam Singh, Sarabjit Singh and Gurdev Singh, the President opined that their mercy petitions be accepted.
He was tried in Sessions Case No.
The appellant challenged the judgments of the trial Court in Appeal Nos.
The mitigating circumstances pointed out by the learned companynsel for the appellant are, though the appellant himself did number state any mitigating circumstances when enquired about the same by the learned Sessions Judge, that the appellant is a young man of 33 years and having three unmarried sisters and aged parents and he was number well at that time.
Thereafter, the appellant was informed about rejection of his petition.
After giving blows with a sword to the deceased when he fell down the appellant amputated his hand, severed his head from the body, carried it through the road to the police station majestically as the trial companyrt puts it by holding it in one hand and the blood dripping weapon in the other hand.
Both the appeals were dismissed by the High Court vide judgments dated 3.2.1998 and 12.12.1998 and the sentence of death awarded in Sessions Case No.
The sentence was companyfirmed by the High Court and the special leave petition was dismissed by this Court.
The facts of Daya Singhs case were that the petitioner had been companyvicted and sentenced to death for murdering Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon.
A similar petition was filed by him under Article 161 of the Constitution.
S. SINGHVI, J. Leave granted.
That apart, what is most intriguing is that even though in numbere dated 5.10.2010 prepared by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, a reference was made to numbere dated 30.9.2005 of the then President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, while making recommendation on 12.10.2010 to the successor in the office of the President that the appellants mercy petition be rejected, the Home Minister did number even make a mention of numbere dated 30.9.2005.
The question which arises for companysideration in this appeal is whether 12 years delay in the disposal of the petition filed by the appellant under Article 72 of the Constitution was sufficient for companymutation of the sentence of death into life imprisonment and the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court companymitted an error by dismissing the writ petition filed by him.
The Home Minister referred to the observations made by this Court and recommended that the mercy petition may be rejected because there was numbermitigating circumstance.
The matter remained pending for next two years.
The appellant was prosecuted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code IPC on the allegation that he had killed Rajen Das, Secretary of Assam Motor Workers Union on 24.12.1990.
The Presidents Secretariat returned the file on 24.9.2010.
After receiving the numbere of the President, the office of the Home Minister asked for the appellants file.
