By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, March 24: The High Court of Meghalaya has set aside a September 23, 2022, order of the Secretary to the Department of Prisons and Correctional Services and a July 14, 2022, opinion of the East Khasi Hills District Judge rejecting the appeal of an Arunachal Pradesh-based petitioner for the remission of his sentence.
The single-bench court of Justice W. Diengdoh also observed that without the necessity of the petitioner, Nabam Dai having to file a fresh application, the authorities concerned would do so from the records and reconsider the same following due procedure.
He said the exercise should preferably be completed within 45 days from the date of this judgement.
The petition was filed in 2005 after a tourist taxi bearing registration number ML-05 D 5296 and its driver Gaytam Gurung disappeared. The vehicle was hired by some people on the afternoon of December 12, 2005.
The vehicle’s owner reported the matter to the president of the Shillong Greater Tourist Taxi Association, who lodged an FIR on December 15, 2005, at the Shillong Sadar Police Station. The police registered case number 194(12) of 2005 under Sections 382, 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
After an investigation, the petitioner and four others were arrested and made to stand trial for the murder.
In the course of the trial, the Sessions Judge, Shillong examined several witnesses and brought on record certain material exhibits produced by the prosecution. On March 5, 2008, the petitioner was convicted along with one Jatin Rabha for having committed the offence of murder and theft.
Upon conviction, the two were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
The other three accused – Chandra Singh Chetri, Namgil Dorjee, and Rahul Pegoo – were let off by the trial court on the benefit of the doubt.
The petitioner sought relief of remission of sentence, primarily on the ground that he completed more than 14 years of imprisonment as provided under Section 432 read with Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
The petitioner filed an application on August 14, 2020, seeking remission of his sentence. On December 5 of that year, he filed another application before the relevant authority through his brother Akil Tam.
Failing to get a response to the applications, he filed another application on August 2, 2021. He sent a reminder on July 21, 2022.
The petitioner said he was compelled to approach the high court for the remission of his sentence after the authority concerned continued to remain unresponsive.
It was during the proceedings of the petition before the high court that the petitioner came to know of an order on September 23, 2022, passed by the Secretary to the Department of Prisons and Correctional Services rejecting his remission plea.
The rejection was based on the Shillong District Judge’s opinion on July 14, 2022, that remission should not be considered due to the brutal nature of the crime committed by a syndicate on the run. The judge also observed that the petitioner had the potential to repeat the crime.