Kandivali hawker leader’s murder: HC stays ‘life till death’ awarded to two convicts

The Bombay High Court has stayed the "life till death" penalty awarded to two moneylenders for stabbing a hawkers union leader to death in 2012. The court also stayed a clause that restrained the state government from granting parole or furlough to the accused.

MUMBAI: Observing that a trial court cannot impose a modified sentence, the Bombay high court (HC) has stayed the “life till death” penalty awarded to two moneylenders for stabbing a hawkers union leader to death on a busy road in Kandivali in November 2012.

HT Image

The division bench of justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse also stayed a clause in the trial court order that restrained the state government from granting parole or furlough to the two accused- Shivprasad Balgovind Kesari and Shivkumar Pathru Bhardwaj and allowed them to apply for the leave.

According to the police, Kesari and Pathru had in November 2012 stabbed Kapurchand Gupta, 49, to death in the middle of the road in Kandivali, as the victim, secretary of the hawker’s union, had been at loggerheads with the accused for over a year and had put an end to their money lending business. Gupta was stabbed at least 27 times by the accused, who came in a car and dashed into the bike on which Gupta was riding a pillion.

In their appeals against the conviction, the duo had filed a plea seeking a stay on the two clauses, as they were unable to apply for parole leave. Their counsel, Dr Yug Mohit Chaudhry, pointed out that the trial court order was contrary to settled legal principles. In support of his arguments, the counsel had relied on Supreme Court (SC) judgements, holding that the trial courts cannot impose modified sentences – penalties other than those provided by statutes and only constitutional courts had the authority to do so.

HC accepted his contentions and stayed the trial court order to the extent it directed the life term to be till the natural end of the lives of the convicts and also a restraint on the grant of parole leaves to them.

“It is thus clear that the trial court is foreclosed from imposing such a modified or specific term of sentence for life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s life,” said the bench referring to the SC judgements cited by Dr Chaudhry.

“Similarly, the trial court could not have directed the appropriate court from abstaining from releasing the applicant on parole, and also, from commuting or remitting the sentence,” the high court added.

HC clarified that it is now open for the appropriate authority to consider any application of the applicants, seeking parole or furlough leave.