Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.L. OZA, M.M. DUTT, K.N. SINGH, K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.
Smt. Triveniben, Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat, Respondent.
Writ Petn. (Cri) No. 1566 of 1985 with Cri Misc. Petn. No. 3543 of 1986 and Writ Petn. (Cri) Nos. 186, 191 of 1986 and 338 of 1988 and Writ Petn. (Cri) No. 649 of 1987 with Cri Misc. Petn. No. 4576 of 1987
Decided on 11-10-1988.
AND
Harbhajan Singh, Petitioner
Versus
State of J. and K., Respondents.
AND
Dal Singh, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and another, Respondents.
AND
Indian Council of Family and Social Welfare, Petitioner
Versus
State of T.N., Respondent. 143
AND
Gurcharan Singh and Pritam Singh (rep. by their mother), Petitioners
Versus
State Punjab, Respondent.
Mr. R.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, Mr. Mohd. Naseem, Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Mr. P.K. Jain, Mr. Mukul Mudgal, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Mr. B.P. Singh, Mr. P. Krishna Rao, Mr. B.K. Prasad, Ms. Malini Podwal and Mr. Lalit Kumar Gupta, Advocates with him, for Petitioners; Mr. B. Datta, Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. V.C. Mahajan, Mr. T.U. Mehta, Sr. Advocates, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Mr. M.N. Shroff and Mr. Mahabir Singh Advocates with them for Respondents; Mr. A.K. Goel, and Mr. Ajit Pudissery, Advocates, for Intervenors in W.P. No. 1566 of 1985.
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 32 - Delay in execution of death sentence – Death sentence - In view of the conflicting decisions in (i) T. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1983) 2 SCR 348; (ii) Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCR 582; and (iii) Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra, (1985) 2 SCR 9 question as to prolonged delay in execution of death sentence entitles accused to lesser sentence of life imprisonment has come up for consideration before Constitution Bench - Court have examined question carefully in the light of submissions made by counsel on both sides - Court have also examined the individual cases listed for consideration - Court now give only court conclusion to avoid further delay in these matters - Reasons in support of the conclusion will follow later - Whether execution of sentence should be carried out or should be altered into imprisonment for life – Held, Undue long delay in execution of sentence of death will entitle the condemned person to approach this Court under Article 32 but this Court will only examine nature of delay caused and circumstances ensued after sentence was finally confirmed by judicial process and will have no jurisdiction to re-open conclusions reached by Court while finally maintaining the sentence of death - No fixed period of delay could be held to make the sentence of death inexecutable and to this extent the decision in Vatheeswarans case cannot be said to lay down the correct law and therefore to that extent stands overruled - In the light of these principles and giving our anxious consideration to every one of these cases, court allow in part only W. P. and quash the sentence of death awarded to the accused - In place of the sentence of death, court substitute the sentence of imprisonment for life to that accused - Court dismiss writ petitions.
JUDGMENT
OZA, J. :— In view of the conflicting decisions in (i) T. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1983) 2 SCR 348; (ii) Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCR 582; and (iii) Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra, (1985) 2 SCR 9 question as to whether prolonged delay in execution of death sentence entitles the accused to the lesser sentence of life imprisonment has come up for consideration before the Constitution Bench. We have examined the question carefully in the light of the submissions made by counsel on both sides. We have also examined the individual cases listed for consideration. We now give only our conclusion to avoid further delay in these matters. The reasons in support of the conclusion will follow later.
2. We are of the opinion that :
1. Undue long delay in execution of the sentence of death will entitle the condemned person to approach this Court under Article 32 but this Court will only examine the nature of delay caused and circumstances ensued after sentence was finally confirmed by the judicial process and will have no jurisdiction to re-open the conclusions reached by the Court while finally maintaining the sentence of death. This Court, however, may consider the question of inordinate delay in the light of all circumstances of the case to decide whether the execution of sentence should be carried out or should be altered into imprisonment for life. No fixed period of delay could be held to make the sentence of death inexecutable and to this extent the decision in Vatheeswarans case cannot be said to lay down the correct law and therefore to that extent stands overruled.
3. In the light of these principles and giving our anxious consideration to every one of these cases, we allow in part only W. P. (Cri) No. 186 of 1986 and quash the sentence of death awarded to the accused (Harbhajan Singh). In the place of the sentence of death, we substitute the sentence of imprisonment for life to that accused.
4. We dismiss all other writ petitions.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1989 SC 142
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
