Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
STATE OF
HANSA________________________________________________PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF
PANCHTARA________________________________________RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS..3
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......4
a. STATUTES........4
b. LIST OF CASES4
c. BOOKS...5
d. DICTIONARIES .......5
e. WEBSITES REFERRED...6
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...7
4. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES.....8
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS.......9
6. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS.......11
7. PLEADINGS.......13
8. PRAYER OF RELIEF..20
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF STATUTES:
2. Constitution of India
LIST OF CASES:
1. Pramod isloor vs state of Karnataka, 1990 (2) crimes 296, 300 (kant-DB)
2. Maru ram vs union of india, AIR 1980 SC 2147 : (1981) 1 SCC 100 : 1980 CrLj 1440
5. State of madhya pradesh vs ratan singh (1967) SCC (Crl) 428: (1976 cri LJ 1192)
9. AIR 2003 SC 3318, see also, V. Suresh vs St of Kerala( 2006) CRLJ, 4562 (4563,4564).
10. Gopal VinayakGodse v State of Maharashtra AIR 1960 1 SC 600, See also, K
LIST OF BOOKS:
1. Durga Dass Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Edn, vol 1, Article 1 to 152
2. Durga Dass Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Edn, vol 1, Article 153 to end
DICTIONARIES REFERRED:
WEBSITES REFFERRED:
1. www.SCConline.com
2. www.jstor,com
3. www.manupatra.com
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Petitioner submits this petition before the honorable Supreme Court of Indradhwaja invoking Article 32
IDENTIFICATION O F ISSUES
I. Whether F. I. R. No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa State was illegal as the acts formed part
of the same transaction which were purported to be investigated in offences registered under F. I.
II. Whether the imprisonment for life means till the end of convicts life?
III. Whether after the refusal of the president to grant pardon/remission to the convicts of
F.I.R. No. 298/1998, the Union can give consent for the remission as required under Criminal
IV. Whether the provisions of Criminal procedure code of Indradhwaja can be used to grant
remissions after the exercise of powers by President and Governor under the Articles 72 and 161
respectively?
V. Whether the special Supreme Court order creating special category of sentence and putting
STATEMENT OF FACTS
that majority of population follows Pihu religion. Other religion is soham which constitutes
Sasha was a very popular religious and spiritual preacher of Pihu religion which is a
Sasha was to deliver a lecture in Thar District of Panchtara State. When he reached the
venue several persons came forward to touch his feet as a mark of respect. In the meantime two
persons who were identified as Rimpo and Hardo also touched his feet and thereafter fired at
him. He was taken to Government Medical College and Hospital, Thar and was declared dead on
arrival.
FBI nabbed both the culprits from National Capital Territory when they were trying to flee
away from the country. An FIR No. 298/1998 was registered at Thar Police Station under Arms
Act, Indradhwaja Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Terrorist and Disruptive
FIR No. 219/1998 was registered in Peru district of Hansa booking 7 persons including
Rimpo and Hardo. 1998. FBI investigation into FIR No. 298/1998 led to charge sheet of 12
persons under various provisions of Arms Act, IPC, TADA. All accused were sentenced to death
by Special Court and the same was confirmed by the High Court.
Mercy petition under Article 72 was rejected. The Supreme Court converted the death
All the accused were charged with offences under the Arms Act, Explosive Substances
Act and IPC for various offences including planning, abetting and conspiring the murder of 3000
innocent persons.
Supreme Court passed an order stating that a special category of offenders can be put
beyond remission and ordered that all the seven convicts be sentenced to imprisonment till life
State of Hansa wrote a letter to State of Panchtara contending that Rimpo and Hardo have
been sentenced to imprisonment for life till life ends with no remission by the Supreme Court of
India in offences registered under FIR No. 219/1998 in the State of Hansa.
A PIL was filed by an NGO namely HELP based in Panchtara in Supreme Court of
Indradhwaja for securing the release of Rimpo and Hardo on the ground that they have
State of Hansa has claimed that after the exercise of pardoning powers under Articles 72
and 162, further remission by the State of Panchtara is illegal and unconstitutional. It has also
claimed that once the President has refused to grant pardon/remission to the convicts of FIR No.
298/1998. PIL, Review Petition of Union of Indradhwaja and Petition filed by State of Hansa
were clubbed and were fixed for hearing before the three judge bench of the Supreme Court of
Indradhwaja..
A Seven Judge bench has been constituted by the Supreme Court of Indradhwaja to decide
Police Establishment Act is analogous to Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; CrPC of
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
FIR No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa State was legal and acts performed did not
1) That the FIR No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa state was legal. The F.I.R No. 219/1998
Registered in Peru district of Hansa state booking 7 persons including Hardo and Rimpo was
because the police had raided at the house occupied by Hardo and Rimpo and discovered highly
explosive substances, bombs, arms and ammunition.
2) 3000 persons belonging to both the religions were died in the worst ever riot in the history
of Indradhwaja.
o Acts performed did not form part of same transaction.
1) The F.I.R No.219/1998 was legal. F.I.R No. 298/1998 registered in Panchtara state and the
F.I.R No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa state did not form same transaction. The F.I.R No.
298/1998 registered on Hardo and Rimpo in Panchtara for killing Sasha a religious preacher of
sentence of imprisonment, cannot be bar for premature release by giving him the
ii. The sentence of imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as
imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicts natural life.
that it actually means imprisonment for the whole natural life of convict
After the refusal of the president to grant pardon/remission the union can give consent for the
remission since there are appropriate provisions in the code of criminal procedure of
indradhwaja for the above said. Because section 432 (1) says that when any person has been
sentenced to punishment for an offence the appropriate govt may at any time without
conditions or upon any condition which the person sentenced accepts suspend the execution of
his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.
In this case state of Panchtara decided to remit the sentences of all convicts contending that
they have suffered more than 16 years of incarceration, under criminal procedure code. It is
Special Supreme Court creating special category of sentence and putting that
i. A special court can be formed for a very few criminal cases with the permission of
the supreme court. Special courts have the power to give death sentence and life
ii. Special court can create a special category of sentence for the convicts in criminal
cases.
iii. Special category of sentence beyond remission is constitutional as this does not
affect the persons life. They are punished because of their illegal activities.
PLEADINGS
I. FIR No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa State was legal and acts performed did not
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that instant petition filed that the FIR No.
219/1998 registered in Hansa state was legal. The F.I.R No. 219/1998 Registered in Peru district
of Hansa state booking 7 persons including Hardo and Rimpo was because the police had raided
at the house occupied by Hardo and Rimpo and discovered highly explosive substances, bombs,
arms and ammunition. Police also founded some printed material aimed at spreading hatred
among Pihus and Sohams. They also spread communal hatred leading to riots. They ordered
merciless killing of Pihus. Their main motive is to spread communal hatred and riots. So they
killed Sasha and riots broke out in Hansa state. 3000 persons belonging to both the religions
were died in the worst ever riot in the history of Indradhwaja. The F.I.R No. 219/1998 was
registered mainly because of spreading religious hatred and riots among the Pihus. A fact with
different version in lodgin of 2 FIR is permissible1. In present case, its not counter claim our
facts are different from FIR NO.2982 Thus the F.I.R No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa state on
The F.I.R No.219/1998 was legal. F.I.R No. 298/1998 registered in Panchtara state
and the F.I.R No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa state did not form same transaction. The F.I.R
1
Bahubai v State of Kerala & others (2010) 12 SCC 254
2
Surrender kaushik v State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) (6) SCC
No. 298/1998 registered on Hardo and Rimpo in Panchtara for killing Sasha a religious preacher
of Pihus who belongs to Hansa state. The F.I.R 298/1998 was filed under IPC, TADA and the
F.I.R No. 219/1998 was registered for spreading religious hatred and riots among Pihus and
Sohams. However, both the F.I.Rs were filed on Hardo and Rimpo they didnt form same
In Ram Lal Narang vs Om prakash Narang & Anr, court considering the question as to whether
investigation and further proceedings on the basis of both the FIRs was permissible held that no
straitjacket formula can be laid down in this regard. The only test whether two FIRs can be
permitted to exist was whether the two conspiracies were identical or not. Thus in this case both
the FIRs filed on Hardo and Rimpo were off for different reasons thus they did no form a same
transaction
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that instant petition filed that in Life
imprisonment there is no particular time fixed in criminal procedure code. Life imprisonment till
end of life convicts. Serving of mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment, cannot be bar for
premature release by giving him the benefit of remission under the rules and set-off of pre-
conviction detention3. The sentence of life imprisonment for life is one of imprisonment for the
whole of the remaining period of the convicted persons natural life, its not compulsory to
release after 16 years Jail life of once we realize the truism that a life sentence for whole life 4.
The sentence of imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as imprisonment for the
whole of the remaining period of the convicts natural life5. Life imprisonment cannot be
equivalent to imprisonment for 14 or 20 years and that it actually means imprisonment for the
whole natural life of convict6. In this case three judge bench of supreme court clearly mentioned
life imprisonment till end of convicts life. Section 57 of Indian Penal code says, calculating
fraction of terms of punishment, for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for
3
Pramod isloor v State of Karnataka, 1990 (2) crimes 296, 300 (kant-DB)
4
Maru ram v union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147 : (1981) 1 SCC 100 : 1980 CrLj 1440
5
Mohd. Munna v Union of India 2005 (7) SCC 417
6
State of Uttar Pradesh v Sanjay Kumar 2012 (8) SCC 537 see also, Dalbir singh & ors v State of Punjab AIR 1979
twenty years. There is misconception that a prisoner serving life sentence has an indefeasible
right to be released on completion of either 14 or 20 years, the prisoner have no such right. A
convict undergoing life imprisonment is expected to remain in custody till end of his life ,
subject any remission granted by appropriate by the appropriate government. In the various
decisions rendered after godses case, imprisonment for life has been repeatedly held to mean
imprisonment for the natural life of the convicts. Imprisonment for life means sentence for entire
life, which does not expire automatically at end of twenty years including remission, because the
rules framed under various Jail Manuals under the prison act cannot supersede the statutory
provision of Indian penal code7. The contention having regard to the provision of section 57 IPC,
a prisoner entitled to release after completing 20 years court rejected 8. Duration life sentence till
end of life, in this case three judge bench of supreme court order, imprisonment till life end
without remission. It would not open to the court to make any special category of sentence in
substitution of death penalty and put that category beyond application of remission
7
State of Madhya Pradesh v Ratan Singh (1967) SCC (Crl) 428: (1976 cri LJ 1192)
8
Ramaraj @ Nanhoo @ Bihnun v State of Chhattisgarh (CRL) 4614 2006
III. Unions power to consent remission under Criminal Procedure Code of Indradhwaja
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that instant petition filed that after the
refusal of the president to grant pardon/remission the union can give consent for the remission
since there are appropriate provisions in the code of criminal procedure of Indradhwaja for the
above said. Because section 432 (1) says that when any person has been sentenced to punishment
for an offence the appropriate govt may at any time without conditions or upon any condition
which the person sentenced accepts suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or
any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced. Section 432 (7) provides that the
appropriate government is the union govt. According to the rationale laid down in K
by the provisions of Sec 432 which vests the said power with appropriate government and no in
any court. This clearly can be used to provide that the Union Government can provide a
remission for the death row convicts in the present case. The grant of remission is a matter of
policy and it is for the executive branch of the government to decide as to when, to what extent
and in what manner remission is to be granted. This clearly shows that the government is the
ultimate authority to decide on granting pardon to a sentenced convict and not the executive head
9
AIR 2003 SC 3318, see also, V. Suresh v St of Kerala( 2006) CRLJ, 4562 (4563,4564).
of the state. The question of remission rests exclusively within the province of the appropriate
government10.In the light of the above authorities cited, it can easily be understood that the
executive has no power no power with regard to this issue. The union government can give a
remission to the convicts as they have were in jail for more than 15 years and 14 years being the
10
Gopal VinayakGodse v State of Maharashtra AIR 1960 1 SC 600, See also, K Pandurangan v S.R.R Vehisamy,
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that instant petition filed, in this case state of
Panchtara decided to remit the sentences of all convicts contending that they have suffered more
state of Panchtara is not an appropriate government. This case investigated by Federal bureau of
investigation (FBI), union power extended in this case. According to section Sec 432 (7)(a),
of sentences passed by the state government in relation to a person, who has been convicted an
offences, some of which relate to matters to which the executive power of the union extends
under section 435 (2). In this case, entire investigation made and handover to CBI , at this stage,
the state cannot claim that it is the appropriate government11. Once the death sentence of a
convict has been commuted into life imprisonment , the same has interpreted to entire life of the
convicts and executive cannot exercise the power of remission of sentence thereafter12. There is
inability for premature release for state, because they are comes under capital offence. Certain
catogries of convicted prisoners undergoing life sentence would be entitled to be considered for
pre-mature release only after undergoing imprisonment for twenty years including remissions, in
this case they are not completed twenty years of life imprisonment and they are filed under Arms
act and terrorist disruptive Act, so state government didnt have any power to remission of
sentence.
11
Lalu Prasad yadav v State of Bihar,(2010) 5 SCC 1
12
Swamy Shraddananda v State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767
V. Special Supreme Court creating special category of sentence and putting that
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that instant petition filed , a special court can
be formed for a very few criminal cases with the permission of the Supreme Court. Special
courts have the power to give death sentence and life imprisonment for the convicts. The appeal
can be made from the special court to the supreme court and thus the special court is
Special court can create a special category of sentence for the convicts in criminal cases. The
special court created by the supreme court is legal and they have the power to create a special
category of sentence with the permission of the supreme court and thus the special category of
sentence is legal.
Special category of sentence beyond remission is constitutional as this does not affect the
persons life. They are punished because of their illegal activities. IPC has special provisions for
the special category of sentence beyond remission. Thus the special category of sentence
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
I. Declare and adjudge that F.I.R. NO.219/1998 registered in the Hansa State was legal as
the acts formed part of the some transaction which purported to be investigated in offences
II. Declare and adjudge that Imprisonment for life means till the end of convicts life
III. Declare and adjudge that Union cannot give consent for remission as required under
IV. Declare and adjudge that Provisions of CrPC cannot be used to grant remission after the
exercise of power by President and Governor under Article 71 and 161 respectively.
V. Declare and adjudge that special supreme court order creating special category of
sentence and putting that category beyond remission is illegal and unconstitutional.
Respectfully Submitted