The Bombay High Court asked the state government whether a plea for parole by a woman whose death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment could be considered.
The court was hearing a petition filed by one of the two sisters, Renuka Sinde, who was sentenced to death by the High Court for abducting and killing children. The High Court said the Supreme Court upholding the HC verdict, directed the accused to undergo life imprisonment without any parole and sought to know whether it is part of the amnesty system, excluding release on parole or furlough.
They were convicted of kidnapping 13 children between 1990 and 1996, killing some and using them as cover to rob others of their purses and chains. The High Court had observed in January 2022 that the state machinery had shown “delay and apathy” in taking decisions. Due to their pleading for mercy, the death sentence given to the two sisters Renuka was commuted. Life imprisonment verdict for Shinde and Seema Gavit The death sentence of both Shinde and Seema Gavit from Kolhapur was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2006.
The court pulled up the state for “inexplicable, egregious delay” in disposing of the sisters’ mercy petition and said, “Due to the casual approach of the state authorities, the mercy petition could not be decided for seven years, 10 months and 15 days between 2006 and 2014.” On December 20, a bench of Justices Bharti H Dangre and Manjusha A Deshpande was hearing Shinde’s plea for parole/furlough.
Advocate Wagal for the petitioner referred to the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Atbir v. State of Delhi, in which the Supreme Court rejected the blanket denial of furlough by highlighting the object and purpose of the provision of furlough and parole. to achieve
Therefore, Wagal submitted that the denial of the petitioner’s right by the authorities, which relied on the Bombay Prison Furlough and Parole (Parole) Rules, 1959, was “arbitrary”.
While the state government upheld the death sentence order, the Supreme Court on April 13, 2023 raised objections to the petition by modifying it and “directing the accused to undergo life imprisonment for natural life without any parole”. “
“It is in this background that the question arises for us whether the Supreme Court order directing the accused to undergo life imprisonment without parole for natural life excludes his release on parole/furlough, which is a part of amnesty system.” The bench noted.
It asked Wagal and Additional Public Prosecutor MM Deshmukh for the state to “throw some light” on the case and posted a further hearing on January 21.
Why should you buy our membership?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be confused and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package