1. Conviction for murder and death sentence confirmation — Challenge to rejection of mercy petition on grounds of inordinate delay and long incarceration. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, DEEPAK GUPTA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
JAGDISH – PETITIONERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO. 591 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 338 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 197 OF 2014
Decided on : 21-02-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding mercy petition and consequent delay in execution of death sentence for years on end is another form of punishment.
Inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding mercy petition and consequent delay in execution of death sentence for years on end is another form of punishment.
Subject
Criminal Law - Death Penalty
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 137 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 354(3) – Death sentence – Review petition – It has been urged that delay in deciding mercy petition and delay in legal proceedings is sufficient to recall sentence of death – As far as Government of India or Secretariat of President of India is concerned, there is no delay in dealing with mercy petition and same has been dealt with expeditiously – However, State of Madhya Pradesh has given no explanation for delay of more than 4 years in forwarding mercy petition – Delay in forwarding petition is totally unexplained – Court cannot countenance unexplained delay of more than 4 years – Mercy petition is last hope of a person on death row – Every dawn will give rise to a new hope that his mercy petition may be accepted – By night fall this hope also dies – Inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding mercy petition and consequent delay in execution of death sentence for years on end is another form of punishment which was awarded by Court – In cases where death sentence has to be executed same should be done as early as possible – If mercy petitions are not forwarded for 4 years and no explanation is submitted, delay is inordinate and unexplained – Petitioner has now been behind bars for almost about 14 years – Death sentence is exception and has to be awarded in rarest of rare cases – Death sentence commuted to that of life – However, keeping in view nature of crime and fact that 6 innocent lives were lost, life imprisonment in this case shall mean entire remaining life of petitioner and he shall not be released till his death. (Paras 4, 8 to 12)
Facts of Case:
Review of death sentence. Petitioner was tried for murder of his wife and five children. He was convicted by trial court and sentenced to death. He filed appeal which was dismissed by High Court and death sentence was confirmed. Thereafter, he filed Criminal Appeal in this Court which was dismissed and again death sentence was confirmed. Mercy petition was rejected by President of India.
Findings of Court:
We are not only dealing with issue of delay in disposal of mercy petition. Petitioner has now been behind bars for almost about 14 years. This is also a factor which will have to be taken into consideration.
Result : Review Petition as well as Writ Petition Partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Maheravish Rein, Advocate, Ms. Shamshravish Rein, Advocate, Mr. Aldanish Rein, Advocate, Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate, Mr. Shakti Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Prithviraj Singh, Advocate and Ms. Sheetal Rajput, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate, Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG, Mr. Harish Pandey, Advocate, Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Advocate, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Advocate, Mr. B.N. Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Advocate, Ms. Aparna Trivedi, Advocate and Mr. Santanu Singh, Advocate
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Maheravish Rein, Advocate, Ms. Shamshravish Rein, Advocate, Mr. Aldanish Rein, Advocate, Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate, Mr. Shakti Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Prithviraj Singh, Advocate and Ms. Sheetal Rajput, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate, Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG, Mr. Harish Pandey, Advocate, Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Advocate, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Advocate, Mr. B.N. Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Advocate, Ms. Aparna Trivedi, Advocate and Mr. Santanu Singh, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Commutation of death sentence based on inordinate delay in deciding mercy petition, long incarceration, mental illness, and the case not being the rarest of rare. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Unexplained inordinate delay by state authorities in forwarding mercy petitions violates procedural due process and constitutes an additional form of punishment. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Inordinate and unexplained delay in deciding a mercy petition, coupled with long incarceration, justifies commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. (Para 5 , 10 , 12 )
5. Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for the remainder of the petitioner's life without possibility of release. (Para 12 )
6. Does delay in deciding a mercy petition justify commutation of a death sentence?
Yes, inordinate, unreasonable, and unexplained delay in disposing of a mercy petition violates the requirement of a fair, just, and reasonable procedure under Article 21, rendering the execution arbitrary and capricious, which can be a ground for commutation. (Para 5 , 10 )
7. How is the effect of long incarceration on a death row convict viewed by the court?
Long incarceration, especially when combined with inordinate delay in deciding mercy petitions, is viewed as an additional form of punishment that can be considered as a factor in commuting a death sentence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
8. What is the impact of a state's failure to explain delays in forwarding a mercy petition?
An unexplained and inordinate delay by state authorities in forwarding a mercy petition to the appropriate constitutional authority is not countenanced by the court and serves as a basis for commuting the death sentence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. Petitioner Jagdish was tried for the murder of his wife and five children. He was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 24.04.2006 and sentenced to death. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by the High Court on 27.06.2006 and the death sentence was confirmed. Thereafter, he filed Criminal Appeal in this Court which was dismissed and again death sentence was confirmed vide judgment dated 18.09.2009.
2. The petitioner filed mercy petition before the jail authorities on 13.10.2009, which came to be rejected by the President of India on 16.07.2014. The petitioner has filed Writ petition (Criminal) No. 197 of 2014 challenging the rejection of his mercy petition and the main ground is that there is a delay of almost 5 years in deciding the mercy petition and this itself is a ground to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed Review Petition No. 591 of 2014 in which review of the judgment of this Court dated 18.09.2009 is sought both on merits and the question of sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 2007. Hence this matter is before this Bench.
3. At the outset we may note that we are not inclined to entertain the Review Petition on the merits of the case. Three courts have come to a concurrent finding of fact that it was the petitioner who murdered his wife and five children. We have gone through the written submissions filed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and find no reason to take a view different from the one taken earlier.
4. We are only dealing with the issue whether the sentence of death should be upheld or not? In the Writ Petition it has been urged that delay in deciding the mercy petition and the delay in legal proceedings is sufficient to recall the sentence of death. In the Review Petition some other arguments have been raised. It has been urged that this case does not fall in the category of the rarest of rare cases; this is a case based on circumstantial evidence; that the petitioner Jagdish was suffering from mental illness; the petitioner has been incarcerated for almost 14 years and execution of the death sentence at this stage would virtually mean imposing two sentences upon him - a sentence of life imprisonment and then a sentence of death.
5. Delay in dealing with mercy petition:
This Court in V. Sriharan alias Murugan vs. Union of India and Others, (2014) 4 SCC 242 held that one of the circumstances recognized by this Court for commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment is the undue, inordinate and unreasonable delay in the execution of death sentence. The Court, however, held that whether the delay is unreasonable or not, it has to be appreciated in the facts of each case. In Sriharan's case, there was a delay of 5 years and one month in disposing of the mercy petition and this Court held as follows :-
"17. Exorbitant delay in disposal of mercy petition renders the process of execution of death sentence arbitrary, whimsical and capricious and, therefore, in executable. Furthermore, such imprisonment, occasioned by inordinate delay in disposal of mercy petitions, is beyond the sentence accorded by the court and to that extent is extra-legal and excessive. Therefore, the apex constitutional authorities must exercise the power under Articles 72/161 within the bounds of constitutional discipline and should dispose of the mercy petitions filed before them in an expeditious manner.
18...........
19. Before we advert to respond the aforesaid contention, it is relevant to comprehend the primary ground on the basis of which the relief was granted in cases of delayed disposal of the mercy petition and that is, such delay violates the requirement of a fair, just and reasonable procedure. Regardless and independent of the suffering it causes, delay makes the process of execution of death sentence unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and thereby, violates procedural due process guaranteed unde
