E-Paper
SC seeks CBI’s response on Graham Staines’ murder convict’s remission plea
Dara Singh in his remission petition in the Supreme Court said that he ‘deeply regrets’ the transgressions committed by him over two decades ago and blamed it on the ’fervor of youth’
The Supreme Court on Monday sought response of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the remission plea filed by Dara Singh, the convict in the 1999 murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons in Odisha.
A bench headed by justice Hrishikesh Roy allowed the agency to be added as a party to the petition filed by Rabindra Kumar Pal, also known as Dara Singh, on an application moved by his lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain.
In August, the court had entertained Singh’s plea for granting him premature release as he has already undergone 24 years and 11 months as part of the life sentence awarded to him. The petition claimed that he was repenting the consequence of his action and maintained good conduct in jail. Currently aged 61, Singh sought the benefit under the state’s premature release policy of April 19, 2022.
Senior advocate Garima Prasad who appeared for the convict informed the court that CBI had investigated the crime, and its view would be essential in deciding the matter. Based on the probe by the agency, a trial court in Odisha convicted Singh along with other accused in 2007 imposing the punishment of life sentence. This order was upheld by the Orissa high court in 2022 and later by the Supreme Court in March 2023. During the entire period of over two decades, Singh claimed, he was not granted parole even once.
The bench, also comprising justice SVN Bhatti said, “Let CBI be impleaded as second respondent. Notice be issued to the CBI.” The state of Odisha is yet to file its response. Advocate Shibashish Mishra appearing for the state requested for more time as he informed the court that in the past, five committees have considered grant of remission to the convict in question and rejected it. The last such decision was in February last year. The court granted him two weeks to file a response.
In his petition, the convict said, “The petitioner, having spent over 24 years being incarcerated in the prison, has well understood and is repenting the consequences of his action taken in the fit of his youthful rage and at present seeks the mercy of this court so that he can give back to the society through his service-oriented actions.”
As per the policy for remission, he is entitled to be considered for premature release after undergoing 14 years actual sentence. Singh had alleged that his right to life under Article 21 has been infringed as he alleged discrimination on part of the state government to deny him premature release even when similarly placed life convicts had already been released.
The petition states that he “deeply regrets” the transgressions committed by him over two decades ago and blamed it on the “fervor of youth, fueled by impassioned reactions to the brutal history of India” due to which his “psyche momentarily lost restraint.”
He urged the court to scrutinise the underlying intent of his actions, claiming there was no personal animosity harbored towards Staines or his two sons. As he was overwhelmed by distress at the barbaric deeds inflicted upon India by the Mughals and the British.
