Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said the state where the offence has been committed would exercise the jurisdiction to decide the remission plea by a convict and not the state where the trial has been conducted.

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih relied upon the Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Radheyshyam Bhagwandas Shah alias Lala Vakil Vs State of Gujarat (Bilkis Bano convict) rendered on May 13, 2022, in its order in a writ petition filed by Rohit Chaturvedi, co-convict in 2003 murder case of poetess Madhumita Shukla of Lucknow. Former Uttar Pradesh Minister Amarmani Tripathi and his wife were also convicted in the case.

In 2022, the apex court had held, "In the instant case, once the crime was committed in the State of Gujarat, after the trial had been concluded and judgment of conviction came to be passed, all further proceedings have to be considered including remission or premature release, as the case may be, in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this Court.”

In the instant case, the court noted the petitioner Rohit Chaturvedi was convicted for offences under Sections 120B and 302 of the IPC in the trial conducted by a court of Special Judge, Dehradun. The offence, however, had taken place in Uttar Pradesh but the trial was transferred to Uttarakhand by the order of the apex court on February 8, 2007.

The order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court of Uttarakhand on July 16, 2012. The top court also dismissed an appeal on November 19, 2013.

The petitioner sought his premature release in terms of policy formulated under Section 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

He made the prayer before the Union government which was transferred to Uttarakhand government that had examined the issue and rejected the plea.

In his plea, the petitioner contended that the Uttar Pradesh government would have been the proper authority for considering the remission plea as the offence had occurred within that State. 

Concurring with the submission, the bench said, "This appears to be the position of law, as enunciated by a coordinate bench of this court in the case of Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah Alias Lala Vakil Vs State of Gujarat and Another (2022)".

The court declared that the entire exercise conducted by the State of Uttarakhand appeared to be without jurisdiction and hence not sustainable under the law.

"We, accordingly, direct that the remission plea which was filed by the petitioner-convict be sent to the Home Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh by the State of Uttarakhand. This shall be done within a period of three weeks from date. Thereafter, the State of Uttar Pradesh shall examine the question and take a decision in that regard within a further period of eight weeks," the bench ordered.

The court also clarified the Uttar Pradesh government should consider the plea without being influenced in any manner by the order passed by the Uttarakhand government any observation made therein.