PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Case Type: Writ Petition Criminal

Date of Judgment: 20-03-2020

Preview image for PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Full Judgment Text

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 122 OF 2020 (Arising out of Diary No.10611 of 2020) PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA .....PETITIONER Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....RESPONDENT O R D E R (1) In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta has challenged rejection of mercy petition by His Excellency the President of India  inter alia on various grounds; that settled principles of consideration of mercy petition have not been followed. The contention of the petitioner is that   the   petitioner’s   plea   of   juvenility   has   not   been   finally determined and this aspect was not kept in view by His Excellency the President of India. (2) By the order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, this Bench Signature Not Verified has   been   constituted   and   we   held   the   sitting   at   2.30   a.m.   on Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2020.03.20 05:22:51 IST Reason: 20.03.2020.  2 (3) We have heard Dr. A.P. Singh and Mr. Shams Khwaja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/convict Pawan Kumar Gupta. We have also heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing for Union of India and also for NCT of Delhi.  The matter was heard from 2.30 am till 3.15 a.m. (4) We have carefully gone through the grounds raised by the petitioner and also submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record. (5) The petitioner has filed a mercy petition on 02.03.2020 and same   was   rejected   by   His   Excellency   the   President   of   India   on 04.03.2020. The petitioner has filed the second mercy petition on 18.03.2020 repeating the same grounds.  (6) In this writ petition, the petitioner has  inter alia  raised various grounds,   namely:­   (i)   that   there   was   miscarriage   of   justice   in rejection of the mercy petition; (ii) the petitioner’s date of birth is 08.10.1996 and on the date of the incident that is 16.12.2012, he was only aged 16 years and that he was a juvenile and his claim of juvenility has not been finally determined; (iii)   the petitioner has been tortured in the prison and had sustained head injuries for which he has not been given proper treatment.    3 (7) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shams Khwaja has also raised the contention that the petitioner might not have shared common intention along with the other co­accused and therefore the petitioner cannot be imposed with the grave capital punishment with other co­convicts.  (8) Mr. Shams Khwaja has also drawn our attention to the press report as per which His Excellency the President of India is said to have expressed concern about “attacks on women” and also said to have expressed his views that the persons who have been convicted of   a   crime   under   Protection   of   Children   from   Sexual   Offences (POCSO) Act, should not be given the right to file a mercy petition. It was, therefore, submitted that having regard to the above press report, it cannot be said that His Excellency the President of India has considered the mercy petition with an open mind. (9) The learned Solicitor General has submitted that the clippings relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only a press report and in any event, the views expressed by His Excellency the President of India could only said to be on the line of the reforms insofar as POCSO is concerned. 4 (10) The consistent view taken by this Court that the exercise of power of judicial review of the decision taken by His Excellency the President   of   India   in   mercy   petition   is   very   limited.    In   Epuru Sudhakar & Another v. Govt. of A.P. & Others , (2006) 8 SCC 161,  this Court held thus :
“34. The position, therefore, is undeniable that judicial<br>review of the order of the President or the Governor under<br>Article 72 or Article 161, as the case may be, is available<br>and their orders can be impugned on the following grounds:
(a) that the order has been passed without application<br>of mind;
(b) that the order is mala fide;
(c) that the order has been passed on extraneous or<br>wholly irrelevant considerations;
(d) that relevant materials have been kept out of<br>consideration;
(e) that the order suffers from arbitrariness.
35.Two important aspects were also highlighted by
learned amicus curiae; one relating to the desirability of
indicating reasons in the order granting pardon/remission
while the other was an equally more important question
relating to power to withdraw the order of granting
pardon/remission, if subsequently, materials are placed to
show that certain relevant materials were not considered or
certain materials of extensive value were kept out of
consideration. According to learned amicus curiae, reasons
are to be indicated, in the absence of which the exercise of
judicial review will be affected.”
5 The   decision   in was   followed   in   Epuru   Sudhakar   (Supra)   Shatrughan Chauhan & Another v. Union of India & Others , (2014) 3 SCC 1. (11) In the light of the above pronouncement, we have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the grounds raised in the writ petition.  (12) In this writ petition, primarily the writ petitioner has again raised the plea of juvenility by contending that his date of birth is 08.10.1996 and that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident on 16.12.2012. The petitioner relies upon the School Certificate issued   by   the   School,   namely,   Gayatri   Bal   Sanskar   Shala, Narayanpur,   District   Ambedkar   Nagar,   which   was   issued   on 12.12.2019. The learned counsel Dr. A.P. Singh submitted that the petitioner’s claim of juvenility has not been finally determined based on the above certificate issued by the said School on 12.12.2019. (13) We do not find merit in the above contention of the learned counsel   Dr.   A.P.   Singh.     The   petitioner   has   earlier   filed   an application on 30.08.2018 raising the plea of juvenility before the Juvenile Justice Board­II, Prayas, Delhi, and after considering the 6 same, the Juvenile Justice Board transferred the petition to the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi, vide order dated   14.09.2018.   By   order   dated   21.12.2018,   the   learned Additional Sessions Judge,   Patiala House, New Delhi, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as being not maintainable. (14) Challenging   that   order,   the   petitioner   has   filed   Criminal Revision Petition No.1301 of 2019 before the Delhi High Court.  By the order dated 19.01.2019, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition.     Challenging that order the petitioner had   filed   the   SLP   (Crl.)   No.547   of   2020.     After   considering   the submissions of the petitioner, this Court had passed the detailed order dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 20.01.2020. (15) The   petitioner   is   not   right   in   contending   that   the   plea   of juvenility has not been finally determined by the Courts.  The plea of juvenility raised by the petitioner has been duly considered and rejected by the Courts as noted above.   (16) The contention of the petitioner is that due to torture in the prison the petitioner had sustained head injuries and that he was sutured with more than 10 sutures and proper treatment was not given   to   the   petitioner.     As   pointed   out   earlier,   the   exercise   of 7 judicial review of the order of rejection of the mercy petition by His Excellency the President of India is subject to challenge only on the grounds indicated   in   Epuru Sudhkar   (Supra)   and   Shatrughan and   other   decisions.       The   learned   Solicitor Chauhan   (Supra)   General   has   submitted   that   the   petitioner   was   given   proper treatment.   The learned Solicitor General also denied the torture allegedly meted out to the petitioner.  The alleged torture, if any, in the prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the executive order passed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India rejecting the mercy petition.  (17) Insofar   as   the   contention   of   Mr.   Shams   Khwaja   that   the petitioner might not have shared the common intention along with other co­accused and that he cannot be imposed the grave capital punishment   is   concerned,   these   grounds   have   been   already considered both by the Trial Court as well as the High Court and by this Court and the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta has been found guilty and convicted. (18) While exercising the power of judicial review,  this contention raised   by   the   learned   counsel   Mr.   Shams   Khwaja   cannot   be 8 entertained as a ground for judicial review of the order of rejection passed by His Excellency the President of India. (19) We   have   decided   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the   co­convict Mukesh Kumar in   Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India  ­   Writ Petition (Crl.) No..40  of 2020 (29.01.2020) and the writ petition filed by co­ convict Vinay Kumar Sharma in   Vinay Kumar Sharma v. Union of   India   &   Others   ­   Writ   Petition   (Crl.)   No.65   of   2020   (dated 14.02.2020), and Writ Petition filed by co­convict Akshay Kumar Singh in  Akshay Kumar Singh  Writ v. Union of India & Others ­  Petition (Crl.) No.121 of 2020 (19.03.2020) challenging  the order of rejection of mercy petition by His Excellency the President of India. We   have   passed   detailed   orders   while   dismissing   those   writ petitions challenging the order of rejection of mercy petitions by His Excellency the President of India. (20) Applying the ratio of those orders, we do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition warranting judicial review of the order rejecting the mercy petition by His Excellency the President of India. (21) As we have pointed out in the earlier judgments in the above writ   petitions,   when   the   power   is   vested   in   the   very   high 9 contitutional authority, it must be presumed that the said authority had acted carefully after considering all the aspects of the matter. It cannot be said that His Excellency the President of India did not consider the mercy petition with open mind filed by the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta. (22) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ...........................J. (R. BANUMATHI) ...........................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) ...........................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) NEW DELHI, MARCH 20, 2020.