AMRIT BHUSHAN GUPTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 240 · Decided: 29-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
240 
AMRIT BHUSHAN GUPTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
November 29, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Pemil Code-S. 84-Person convicted and sentenced to dtath wrni11g in-
sane afterwards-If execution shouldi be stayed tW he becamt sant. 
A. petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution was filed in the High Court 
on behalf of the appellant, who was sentenced to death, praying that, since 
the appellant was insane the State should be restrained from carrying out the 
sentence. 
The High Court dismissed the petition holding that if the appellant 
.C 
were really insane, the appropriate authorites would take necessasy action. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
In appeal, to this Court, it was contended that a convicted person who 
became insane after conviction and sentence could not be executed until he 
regained sanity. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (1) (a) Courts have no power to prohibit the carrying out of a 
sentence of death legally passed upon an accused person on the ground either 
that there is some rule in the common law of England against the execution 
of an insane person sentenced to death or for some theological religious or 
moral objection to it. 
Our statute law on the subject is based entirely on 
secular considerations which place the protection and welfare of wcicty in the 
fore,front. 
(249' BJ 
(b) What the statute law does not prohibit or enjoin cannot be enforced, 
by means of a writ of mandamus under art. 226 of the Constitution. ,;o as to 
set at naught a duly passed sentence of a court of justice. (249 CJ 
(2) (a) Section 30 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 has nothing to do with the 
powers of courts. It only regulates the place and manner of confinement of a 
person, who appears to be a lunatic, when his detention or imprisonment 
is 
either during the trial or during the period when, after the sentence, he 
is 
undergoing impri~onment. In the case of a person condemned to death, 
no 
question of keeping him in prison would arise except for the period 
elapsing 
between the passing of ~he sentence of death and its execution. 
[243 F] 
(b) Insanity, to be recognised as an exception to criminal liability must be 
such as to disable an accused person from knowing the character of the act he 
, was committing when he commits a criminal act. lf, at the time of the com-
mission of the offence, the appellant knew the nature of the act he was commit-
tin~, he could not be absolved of responsibility for the grave offence of murder. 
(245 B-D] 
.fagmohan Singlz v. The State of U.P. [1973] 2 S.C.R. 541 referred to. 
Jn the instant case, the whole object of the proceedings in the High Court 
and before this Court seems to be to delay execution of the sentence. In view 
of the nUJ)'\ber of times the appellant had unsuccessfully applied .the powers 
of the High Court and of this Court "ought not to have been invoked again. 
(244 Al 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 383 
of 1976. 
H 
(With Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos. 62 and 380 of 1976.) 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
22-8-1975 of the Delhi High Court in Crl. Writ Petition No. 135/75). 
l 
. 
i> 
j 
.. 
A. B. GUPTA V. UNION (Beg, /.) 
241 
S. K. Sillha, for the Appellant. 
V. P. Raman and Girish Chandra, for the Respondents. 
Tek Chand Chanana (In person) for the applicant-Intervener. 
Tne Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
BEG, J.-A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution 
was 
B 
filed in the High Court of Del'JU, 
seeking a 
writ in the nature of 
Mandamus "or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order'', 
to 
restrain the respondents from carrying out the sentence of 
death 
passed against Amrit Bhushan Gupta, a person condemned to death 
for having committed culpable homicide amounting to murder. 
The ' 
petition was filed by Smt. Shanti Devi, purporting to act on behalf 
of her son Arnrit Bhushan Gupta, who was alleged to be insane. 
A 
C 
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court passed the following order 
on it : 
"We have no doubt in our minds that if the petitioner 
is really insane, as stated in the petition, the 
appropriate 
authorities will take necessary action. 
This petition, at this 
stage. we feel, does not justify invocation of the powers of 
D 
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
Criminal 
· 
\Vrit is dismissed." 
Before the grant of special leave to the petitioner on 27th August, 
1976 an application for intervention in the matter had been tiled

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.