Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L.M. SHARMA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.
Daya Singh, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. (Cri.) No. 133 of 1991
Decided on 24-4-1991.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Held: Before proceeding further we may refer to the decision in Smt. Triveniben’s case laying down the principle, which governs the present petition. Although the cases were disposed of by two judgments, according to the opinion of the Bench, which was unanimous, undue delay in execution of the sentence of death entitles the condemned prisoner to approach this Court under Article 32, but this Court will examine only the nature of delay caused and circumstances ensued after the sentence was finally confirmed by the judicial process, and will have no jurisdiction to reopen the conclusions reached by the Court while finally maintaining the sentence of death. Further, while considering the grievance of inordinate delay this Court may consider all the circumstances of the case for deciding as to whether the sentence of death could be altered into imprisonment for life, and no fixed period of delay could be held to make the sentence of death inexecutable. In the light of these observations the circumstances of the present case are to be examined.
Held further: In absence of any reasonable explanation by the respondents we are of the view that if the concerned officers had bestowed the necessary attention to the matter and devoted the time its urgency needed, we have no doubt that the entire process of consideration of the questions referred would have been completed with in a reasonable period without leaving any yawning gap rightly described by the learned Additional Solicitor General as "embarrassing gap". There has, thus, been an. avoidable delay, which is considerable in the totality of circumstances in the present case, for which the condemned prisoner is in no way responsible.
Held finally: Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to and accordingly substitute the sentence of imprisonment for life in place of the petitioners death sentence.
JUDGMENT
SHARMA, J.:— On the basis of a letter received from a prisoner detained in Alipore Central Jail, Calcutta, drawing the attention of this Court to the long wait of Daya Singh, the petitioner convicted for the murder of late Chief Minister of Punjab, Pratap Singh Kairon, lodged at present in Rohtak Jail, Haryana, pending the execution of his death sentence, this case was registered as a writ petition and was listed before us on 27-3-1991. All the relevant facts were not available from the letter but from the Office Report it appeared that the case of the condemned prisoner had earlier come to this Court. We directed the Registry to examine the earlier files and place before us the relevant details. In the meantime we stayed the execution of the death sentence. The learned counsel for the State of Haryana was also informed about the case. As directed, the case was placed before us again on Monday, the Ist April, 199 1, when Ms. Kusum Chaudhary appeared on behalf of State of Haryana and orders were passed for notice to the counsel representing the Union of India. Having heard about the case, the convict Daya Singh engaged his own counsel to represent him and to press this writ petition and accordingly Mr. R. K. Jain appeared for him on 5-4-1991. We have, in the circumstances, treated this application as one directly by Daya Singh. The Union of India is represented by Additional Solicitor General of India. The case was further adjourned at the request of the counsel and was ultimately heard on 16-4-1991.
2. Mr. Jain has contended that if the relevant circumstances of this case are examined in the light of the decisions of this Court, the conclusion is irresistible that there has been inexcusable delay in executing the death sentence of the petitioner, and the sentence should, therefore, be quashed by this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
3. The petitioner was tried for the murder of Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon which took place in 1965 and was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial Court on 13-12-1978. The sentence was confirmed by the High Court on 22-3-1980. His special leave petition was dismissed by this Court on 21-8-1980 and a further prayer for review was rejected on 2-9-1981 He filed mercy petitions before the Governor and the President of India, which were also rejected. Several orders of stay were passed from time to time, the details whereof are not very significant in view of the rejection by this Court of an earlier application under Article 32, being Writ Petition No. 191 of 1986, filed through his brother Lal Singh. The case was dismissed on October 11, 1988 and the stay of the execution of the sentence stood vacated. The reasoned judgment, however, was pronounced later and is reported in Smt. Triveniben, v. State of Gujarat, (1989) 1 SCC 678. The petitioner filed another mercy petition thereafter before the Governor of Haryana on 18-11-1988 and an order for stay of execution was again passed. The matter remained pending and the petitioner has been awaiting the final outcome of his last petition since then. On the basis of a newspaper report dated December 24, 1990 it is alleged that the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister was drawn to the petitioners case and the Deputy Prime Minister gave an assurance that he would examine the matter. This report drew the attention of Alipore Jail prisoner which prompted him to send the letter which led the Registry of this Court to register the present writ petition.
4. The earlier writ petition of the petitioner Writ Petition No. 191 of 1986, filed through his brother Lal Singh, was initially heard by a Division Bench of this Court and the matter, along with a number of other application on behalf of other convicts was referred for the decision of the Constitution Bench. The cases were heard at considerable length by the Constitution Bench of which one of us (Sharma, J.) was a member and the leading argument at that stage was also made by Mr. R. K. Jain w
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
