Troubled By View That Public Servant's Murder Isn't 'Rarest Of Rare' : Supreme Court On Anand Mohan's Remission, Reserves Judgment

The Supreme Court today(July 16) orally remarked that the Patna High Court's observation that murder of a public servant doesn't fall in the 'rarest of the rare' category would actually encourage criminals to commit crimes against public servants. The remarks were made while a bench comprising Justice Dipankar and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a petition challenging the decision of the Bihar Government to grant premature release to former Bihar MP Anand Mohan in the case for the mob lynching of Gopalganj District Magistrate G Krishnaiah in 1994. It also made serious remarks about the apparent concealment of pending cases against him, including the one allegedly committed while in custody in the present case. The bench has reserved the case for judgment. The present petition was filed by Uma Krishnaiah, the widow of District Magistrate G Krishnaiah, who was killed after an attack by a mob led by Mohan. Mohan was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence. However, he walked out of jail on April 24, 2023 after serving 14 years of imprisonment in view of the remission of sentence granted by the Bihar Government.If shooting point blank at a public servant on duty is not rarest of rare, then what is it? Supreme Court questionsSenior Advocate Ranjit Kumar(for the State of Bihar) referred to the Patna High Court's judgment, which converted Mohan's death penalty to rigorous imprisonment for life on the observation that the case doesn't fall within the rarest of rare category.On this, Justice Datta orally commented that the case may not fall within the rarest of rare category for the Patna High Court, but it was doubtful if judges from other States would take such a view. He said: "One thing that troubles us, although it can't be reopened, murder of a public servant on duty is said to be not rarest of rare. Maybe in Bihar, it may not be rare. But we don't in other States, Mr Kumar, same mindset would be there in the judges that murder of a public servant is [not rarest of rare]."Kumar responded that unfortunately during that time in Bihar, there was jungle raj. Justice Datta remarked that such findings would encourage criminals to continue committing such crimes and the observations should have been applied by the State. "These observations would encourage the criminals that you will get away with murdering a public servant and the Court will not consider it rarest of rare. To convert death to life by saying that murdering a public servant doesn't constitute rarest of rare, it's something else. The State should have come up in appeal against the order," he said.Singh submitted that the State had appealed the order before the Supreme Court, but it was upheld. Today, Kumar took the bench through various factual aspects of the case. He submitted that Mohan was granted remission after he completed more than 14 years of imprisonment, including the undertrial period. Kumar explained that Mohan had first applied for remission in July 2021, which was recommended by the Additional Sessions Judge but was rejected by the State Board. He again applied for remission after a period of 13 months, and since the Judge's recommendation was applicable for three years, the recommendation from probation officers was taken successfully. To this, Justice Datta initially commented that the policy was "followed to the T" and therefore, he was entitled to the remission. However, when the Court referred to the records, it was found that the requirement is 14 years without remission and 20 years after earned remission. However, on the date Mohan had first applied for remission, he had completed 14 years but not 20 years requirement. Justice Datta commented that the convict himself has accepted he hasn't completed the requirement of 20 years. He says: "Government had said, look, here you applied on the date where you have not completed the second condition; apply when you have completed; could that order be assailed as bad in law?"Kumar submitted that the Rules allowed him to apply not more than four months before completing the requirement. He added that the date on which the sessions judge recommended the convict for remission was when he had completed both requirements of 14 years actual sentence and 20 years with earned remission.Questions were also asked by the bench regarding the concealment of pending cases. The bench pointed out that the jailer said there are no pending cases against Mohan, where infact two cases were pending. This information was forwarded to the Remission Board based on which he was released. Conceding to this, Kumar said that he can't quarrel with this position that the jailer didn't disclose the pending cases. He suggested that the matter can be sent back to the Remission Board for reconsideration without taking any coercive step since more than three years have passed and the convict has crossed 70 years. To this, Justice Datta stated that the Court will consider it but added: "He [District Magistrate] would...

Troubled By View That Public Servant's Murder Isn't 'Rarest Of Rare' : Supreme Court On Anand Mohan's Remission, Reserves Judgment

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The Court orally observed that such a view might make criminals think that they can get away after murdering public servant.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Troubled By View That Public Servant's Murder Isn't 'Rarest Of Rare' : Supreme Court On Anand Mohan's Remission, Reserves Judgment

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The Court orally observed that such a view might make criminals think that they can get away after murdering public servant.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers