Life imprisonment means full natural course of life and cannot be interpreted to be 14 years, stated Krishnaiah's wife in her petition over Anand Mohan's release.
Published May 01, 2023 | 7:23 PM ⚊ Updated May 01, 2023 | 8:18 PM
Gangster-turned-politician Anand Mohan (left) and G Krishnaiah and Umadevi (right). (Supplied)
On Monday, 1 May, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the writ plea challenging the Bihar government’s decision to prematurely release former Bihar gangster and MP Anand Mohan, convicted for leading the mob that killed IAS officer Krishnaiah — the then-Gopalganj district magistrate — on 5 December 1994.
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala said that it would take up the matter on 8 May after the counsel appearing for petitioner T Uma Devi Krishnaiah — the wife of the lynched officer —sought an urgent hearing.
Mohan, a Rajput community strongman, was released from Saharsa district jail in Bihar on 27 April morning, following an amendment in the State Prison Manual by the Bihar government, where anyone accused of the “murder of a public servant on duty” wasn’t eligible for premature release.
As per the petitioner Umadevi, the 2012 Bihar Prison Manual said that a convict whose death sentence has been commuted to life sentence will be eligible for consideration of remission only after completion of 20 years of the sentence.
Meanwhile, Uma Devi told South First the day before, “Neither a chief minister nor the prime minister should have the authority to reduce the sentence of a criminal like this. Only the Supreme Court should have the authority over that.”
In the writ petition filed by Uma Devi, she stated that life imprisonment means the full natural course of life and cannot be interpreted to be 14 years.
T Uma Devi, wife of Bihar cadre IAS officer G Krishnaiah who was lynched by a mob in 1994 in Bihar’s Muzaffarpur district. (Ajay Tomar/South First)
“It means that imprisonment for life lasts until the last breath,” she said.
The petition added that the premature release is in violation of the Supreme Court’s 2002 order, which provided that persons convicted of the murder of public servants on duty would not be eligible for remission.
Citing similar cases — Swamy Shraddananda v State of Karnataka, and Union of India v Sriharan — where the court did not grant premature release, the petitioner noted that once the apex court commuted the death sentence to rigorous life imprisonment, it “cannot be altered by the state government under the garb of remission”.
“Therefore, the order dated 24 April 2023 (Bihar government order to release Mohan) is in teeth of judgements of this Hon’ble Court and liable to be set aside,” the petition said.
The petition further asserted that the Bihar government’s order to release Anand Mohan is “against the public policy and has resulted in erosion of faith of public servants, as well as the citizens in the administration of justice”.
G Krishnaiah, a 1985 batch IAS officer. (Ajay Tomar/South First)
“In the present case, the State of Bihar has specially brought about an amendment to the 2012 Bihar Prison Manual with retrospective effect vide a notification dated 10 April 2023, in order to ensure that the convict/respondent (Anand Mohan) be granted the benefit of remission,” the petition read.
It also pointed out that the grant of remission of Mohan is against a plethora of decisions of the Supreme Court, which consistently held that the rules of remission applicable at the time of conviction must be considered when deciding the application of premature release.
In this regard, Uma Devi pointed out that the Supreme Court’s 2002 order — persons convicted of the murder of public servants on duty will not be eligible for remission — would be applicable to Mohan, convicted in 2007.
While speaking to South First on 30 April, Uma Devi asserted that law and order would not prevail if each and every chief minister started taking such decisions.
Noting that the rule of the law should be uniformly applied across the country, Krishnaiah’s batchmate JRK Rao earlier told South First, “If somebody is a convict, be it a powerful man or a poor person, the law should be same for them. Several undertrial convicts are also languishing in jail, but nobody pays attention to them.”
Umadevi demanded that Anand Mohan’s life imprisonment continue. “Life imprisonment, when awarded as a substitute to the death penalty, has to be carried out strictly as directed by the court, and would be beyond the application of remission,” she reportedly said in her petition to the Supreme Court.
“When my husband died, there was a law that if a public servant was killed, the convict would be sentenced to life imprisonment. There was no talk about him being released like this,” Uma Devi told South First.
They fought for freedom & Independence with valour, sacrificed lives & in the last 75 yrs the word 'Independence' has been reduced to mean 'independence' of ruling elite politicians to do anything.
Achievement.She is G Uma Krishnaiah W/o Dalit IAS G Krishnaiah
Plz stay🙏1/14 pic.twitter.com/7wgSOXcUZF— RAHUL (@RahulSeeker) April 25, 2023
Meanwhile, reacting to the Bihar government’s decision, Anand Mohan, who was out on parole for his legislator son Chetan Mohan’s engagement on 25 April, referenced the release of the convicts in the case of Bilkis Bano’s gang-rape and the murder of her 14 relatives.
He told reporters: “In Gujarat, some people were released and garlanded. Perhaps, that also happened under the pressure of the JD(U) and the BJP?”
The SC is also hearing the plea challenging the remission (on 15 August, 2022) by the Gujarat government of the sentence of 11 of these convicts.
In the next hearing on 2 May, it has reportedly asked the state government to show reasons for the grant of remission otherwise the court will its own conclusions.
