Sentence/Sentencing : Death Sentence – Commutation of – Award of death sentence in a rape and murder case – Commutation sought on the grounds of delay in disposal of mercy petition and solitary confinement from the date of conviction order till the disposal of mercy petition – Held: Undue long delay in execution of death sentence would entitle the condemned prisoner to pray for commuting the death sentence to that of life imprisonment – On facts, the alleged period is of two years and three months, starting from the receipt of the mercy petition by the Central Government till the disposal – Mercy petition was disposed on two levels i.e., Governor and the President during the said period – Time taken by the authorities and the functionaries cannot be termed as “inordinate delay” – Thus, it cannot be said that there was delay in deciding the mercy petition – As regards solitary confinement, segregation of a convict from the day when he was awarded death sentence till his mercy petition was disposed of, would be in violation of law laid down in Sunil Batra’s case – On facts, incarceration of the accused in solitary confinement and segregation from 2006 to 2013 was without the sanction of law and completely opposed to the principles laid down by this Court –Period of solitary confinement is for about
10 years – Letter by the medical professional show ill effects on the well-being of the accused due to incarceration in solitary confinement – Thus, to meet the ends of justice, the death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for minimum 30 years. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Undue long delay in execution of death sentence would entitle the condemned prisoner to pray for commuting the death sentence to that of life imprisonment. The alleged period in the instant matter is of two years and three months i.e., starting from the receipt of the mercy petition on 3.3.2011 by the Central Government till the disposal on 15.5.2013. It must be stated that soon after the receipt of the said mercy petition, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India forwarded the mercy petition to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Karnataka so that the Governor, Karnataka could consider the mercy petition first. In the meantime, on 9.3.2011 in Writ Petition No.52 of 2011 preferred by the appellant, this Court had granted stay of execution of death sentence. The matter was considered by the State Cabinet on 7.5.2012 which decided to approve the note prepared by the Home Department recommending rejection of the mercy petition. The matter was then placed before the Hon’ble Governor who rejected the mercy petition on 06.06.2012. The copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Governor and relevant documents were forwarded by the State Government to the Central Government on 30.08.2012. On 18.09.2012, certain information was sought by the Central Government from the State Government which was furnished to the Central Government on 26.12.2012. The matter was thereafter taken up at the Central Government level. The Ministry of Home Affairs prepared an appropriate note for the Hon’ble President who after considering the entirety of the matter rejected the mercy petition on 12.05.2013. [Para 14, 15][652-D-H; 653-A-B]
1.2 The entire period beginning from 03.03.2011 to 15.05.2013 spanning over a period of 2 years and 3 months saw disposal of mercy petition at two different levels, one, by the Hon’ble Governor and other by the Hon’ble President. All the while, there was an order of stay granted by this Court on 19.3.2011 which was operating all through. First and foremost, the time taken by each of these authorities and the functionaries assisting them cannot be called or termed as “inordinate delay” and secondly, it was not as if every passing day was adding to the agony of appellant. The order of stay of execution had put the matter in a different perspective. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the first submission cannot be accepted. [Para 16, 17][653-C-E]
2.1 As regards solitary confinement, the letter written by Medical Officer, Belgaum Central Prison on 6.11.2011 did say that the appellant was kept in solitary confinement and said letter has been heavily relied upon by the appellant in support of the second submission. According to the letter, the appellant was kept in solitary confinement since his admission to the prison in October, 2006 and that apart from common illness such as diarrhoea, fever, running nose and backache, the appellant was found to be suffering from psychosis with depression. This letter also affirms the fact that the appellant was mentally ill. [Para 19] [654-C-D-F]
2.2 The act on part of the medical officer in checking the health and well-being of the appellant was obviously because of the mandate of Section 29 of the Prisons Act, 1894. It must be taken to be accepted that from 2006 till 2016, the appellant was kept in solitary confinement in “Andheri Block” and it was only thereafter, some relaxation in the rigours of the solitary confinement was effected and as the record shows, from 2016 onwards the conditions were gradually relaxed. [Para 20][654-GH; 655-A-B]
2.3 Segregation of a convict from the day when he was awarded death sentence till his mercy petition was disposed of, would be in violation of law laid down by this Court in Sunil Batra’s case. In the instant case, the death sentence was awarded to the appellant in 2006 by the trial court and the mercy petition was finally disposed of by the Hon’ble President on 12.5.2013, which means that the incarceration of the appellant in solitary confinement and segregation from 2006 to 2013 was without the sanction of law and completely opposed to the principles laid down by this Court in Sunil Batra’s case. [Para 21][655-C-D]
2.4 In the instant case, the period of solitary confinement is for about ten years and has two elements: one, from 2006 till the disposal of mercy petition in 2013; and secondly from the date of such disposal till 2016. [Para 23][657-B]
2.5 Having considered the entirety of matter, the impact of solitary confinement were obviously evident in the instant case, as would be clear from the letter given by the medical professional on 6.11.2011 and the communication emanating from the jail on 8.11.2011. The incarceration in solitary confinement thus did show ill effects on the well-being of the appellant. In the backdrop of these features of the matter, the appellant is entitled to have the death sentence imposed upon him to be commuted to death sentence to life. [Para 25][658-C-D]
2.6 Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances on record, ends of justice would be met if while commuting the death sentence awarded to the appellant, the sentence of life imprisonment is imposed upon him with a rider that he shall undergo minimum sentence of 30 years and if any application for remission is moved on his behalf, the same would be considered on its own merits only after he has undergone actual sentence of
30 years. If no remission is granted, the sentence of imprisonment for life shall mean till the remainder of his life. [Para 27][659-AB]
3. The instruction quoted in paragraph 3(f) of this Judgment as regards the procedure governing petitions for mercy in death sentence cases, leads to an incongruous situation. According to it, the mercy petition must be filed within seven days of the disposal of the appeal or dismissal of special leave petition. A convicted accused is entitled to file a review petition within thirty days. An anomalous situation, like the instant one, may arise where even before the review is filed, the mercy petition is required to be filed. The concerned instruction requires suitable modification so as to enable the convicted accused to file mercy petition after exhaustion of remedies in Court of law. [Para 29][659-C-D] B. A. Umesh v. High Court of Karnataka (2011) 3 SCC
85 : [2011] (2) SCR 367; Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 737 : [2014] (11) SCR 1009; Mohd. Mannan alias Abdul Mannan vs. State of Bihar (2019)
16 SCC 584 : [2019] (8) SCR 266 – referred to. A.G. Perarivalan vs. State through Superintendent of Police & Anr. 2022 SCC Online SC 635 – distinguished. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Others (1978) 4 SCC 494; Ajay Kumar Pal v. Union of India & Anr. 2015 (2) SCC 478:[2014] (12) SCR 441; Gopal
Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC
600 : [1961] SCR 440 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.