LexAJAY KUMAR PAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2014] 12 S.C.R. 441 AJAY KUMAR PAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 128 of 2014) DECEMBER 12, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA, U.PAY UMESH LALIT AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.] A B Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 6, 21 and 32 - Writ Petition - Maintainability ~ Death sentence confirmed upto C . Supreme Court - Petitioner put in solitary confinement right from the day of award of death sentence by trial court- Mercy Petition - Delay of 3 years 10 months in disposal thereof - Writ petition seeking commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment - On the ground of inordinate delay in disposal D of Mercy Petition - Held: Petition u!Art. 32 is maintainable - The delay in disposal of Mercy Petition comes within the expression 'inordinate delay' - Segregation of the petitioner to solitary confinement before disposal of the Mercy Petition was in complete transgression of the right u/Art. 21 - The E death sentence is commuted to imprisonment for life - Death Sentence - Prisons Act, 1894 - s. 30(3). Allowing the Petition, the Court HELD: 1. The· death sentence awarded by the trial F court on 09.04.2007 attained finality on 16.03.2010. The Mercy Petition of the petitioner preferred on 10.04.2010 i.e. within a month of the decision of this Court was forwarded on the same day with all relevant documents so as to enable the concerned functionaries to exercise G requisite jurisdiction. Though no time limit can be fixed within which the Mercy Petition ought to be disposed of, the period of 3 years and 10 months to deal with such Mercy Petition in the present case comes within the 441 H 442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R. A expression "inordinate delay". The delay is not on account of the petitioner or as a result of any proceedings initiated by him or on his behalf but is certainly on account of the functionaries and authorities concerned. [Para 9] [450-8-E] B ' Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678: 1989 (1) SCR 509 - followed. · • T. V. Vatheeswatan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1983) 2 SCC 68: 1983 (2) SCR 348; Sher Singh and Ors. v. State of C Punjab 1983 (2) SCC 344; Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2014 (1) SCALE 437 - relied on. 2. Furthermore, the petitioner has all the while been in solitary confinement i.e. since the day he was awarded · 0 death sentence. The petitioner could never have been "segregated" till his Mercy Petition was disposed of. It is only after such disposal that he could be said to be under a finally executable death sentence. The law laid down by this Court was not adhered to at all while confining ' the petitioner in solitary confinement right since the order E of death sentence by the first court. This is complete transgression of the right unde'r Article 21 of the Constitution. causing incalculable harin to the petitioner. [Para 1 OJ [450-F; 451-G-H] F Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494: .1979.(1) SCR392 - relied on. 3. The combined effect of the inordinate delay in disposal of Mercy Petition and the solitary confinement G for such a long period, has caused deprivation of the most cherished right. A case is definitely made out under · Article 32 of the Constitution of India and it is proper to reach out and grant solace to the petitioner for the ends of justice. Therefore, the death sentence is commuted H AJAY KUMAR PAL v. UNION OF !NOIA 443 and substituted .to sentence of life imprisonment. [Para A 1] [452·A·B] Case Law Reference: 2014 (1) SCALE 437 relied on Para 5 1983 (2) SCR 348 relied on Para 8 1983 (2) sec 344 relied on Para 8 1989 (1) SCR 509 followed Para 8 1979 (1) SCR 392 relied on Para 10 CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 128 of 2014. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Urmila Sirur (A.C.) for the Petitioner. Ratan Kr. Choudhary, Binu Tamta, Sushma Suri for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 B c D E 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 F 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 Deat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.