IMPORTANT POINTS
Writ petition under Article 32 for commutation of death sentence after rejection of mercy petition after inordinate delay is maintainable.
Period of 3 years 10 months in disposing mercy petition constitutes inordinate delay.
A prisoner can be kept in solitary confinement only under sentence of death, i.e., after rejection of mercy petition. Keeping the prisoner in solitary confinement from the date of pronouncement by trial court is not proper.
Inordinate delay in disposing mercy petition coupled with long solitary confinement entitles the prisoner to commutation of death sentence.

Judgment

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays that the sentence of death imposed upon the present petitioner be commuted to the imprisonment for life for the reasons dealt with in detail hereafter.

2. In Sessions Trial No.67 of 2005, the court of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi by its judgment and order dated 09.04.2007 had awarded death sentence to the petitioner. The matter reached Jharkhand High Court in Death Reference No.3 of 2007 and also as a result of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence by its judgment and order dated 28.08.2007, which was challenged in this Court vide Criminal Appeal Nos.1295-96 of 2007. This Court concurred with the view taken by the courts below and dismissed the appeals on 16.03.2010. The death sentence imposed upon the petitioner thus stood confirmed on 16.03.2010.

3. The petitioner, who was in jail all through out, preferred Mercy Petitions addressed to the President of India as well as to the Governor of Jharkhand on 10.04.2010. The Mercy Petitions were immediately forwarded by the Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi to the appropriate authorities on 10.04.2010 itself. Said forwarding letter had enclosed the following documents:

“1. Mercy Petition submitted by the petitioner – one page.

2. Copy of the Order of Additional Judge/Special Judge C.B.I. Ranchi- 48 pages.

3. Copy of the Order of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi – 25 pages.

4. Petition filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court – 33 pages.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order – 8 pages.

6. Copy of Rule 923(III) of Jail Manual -3 pages”

4. On 27.01.2014 a communication was received by the Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail from the Officer on Special Duty, Ministry of Home, Government of Jharkhand that the Mercy Petition was rejected by the President of India which fact was communicated by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide its letter dated 08.11.2013. Thus, the petitioner was communicated the result of the disposal of his Mercy Petition preferred on 10.04.2014, nearly after three years and 10 months.

5. In these circumstances this petition has been preferred. Relying on the decision of this Court in Shatrughan Chauhan and another v. Union of India and others1 it is submitted that because of inordinate delay in disposal of his Mercy Petition, the death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life. It is also submitted that right from the day when the death sentence was awarded i.e. from 09.04.2007, the petitioner has been incarcerated in solitary confinement.

6. In Shatrughan Chauhan, 2014 (1) SCALE 437 (supra) while dealing with the issue relating to the maintainability of a petition under Article 32 in similar circumstances, it was observed that the challenge therein was not with regard to the final verdict imposing the death sentence but was based on the supervening circumstances or events that occurred after the confirmation of the death sentence. Relying on some of its earlier Judgments, this Court held such petitions under Article 32 to be maintainable.

7. The challenge in the instant petition is also not with regard to the verdict wherein the death sentence stands imposed, but the focus is on the subsequent circumstances which are relied upon in support of the case for commutation. Holding the present petition maintainable, we now proceed to deal with the submissions regarding delay in disposal of Mercy Petition and the effect of solitary confinement as canvassed. While dealing with delay in execution of death sentence and the resultant effect, we must note that the Mercy Petitions were forwarded by the Jail Authorities on the very day, enclosing all the relevant judgments pertaining to the matter. The time of 3 years and 10 months taken in disposal of the Mercy Petition and communicating the decision thereon is purely to the account of the authorities and functionaries concerned.

8. The ques