B. A. UMESH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 628 · Decided: 04-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
   [2022] 8 S.C.R. 628
628
B. A. UMESH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1892 OF 2022)
NOVEMBER 04, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing : Death Sentence – Commutation of –
Award of death sentence in a rape and murder case – Commutation
sought on the grounds of delay in disposal of mercy petition and
solitary confinement from the date of conviction order till the disposal
of mercy petition – Held: Undue long delay in execution of death
sentence would entitle the condemned prisoner to pray for
commuting the death sentence to that of life imprisonment – On
facts, the alleged period is of two years and three months, starting
from the receipt of the mercy petition by the Central Government till
the disposal – Mercy petition was disposed on two levels i.e.,
Governor and the President during the said period – Time taken by
the authorities and the functionaries cannot be termed as “inordinate
delay” – Thus, it cannot be said that there was delay in deciding
the mercy petition – As regards solitary confinement, segregation of
a convict from the day when he was awarded death sentence till his
mercy petition was disposed of, would be in violation of law laid
down in Sunil Batra’s case – On facts, incarceration of the accused
in solitary confinement and segregation from 2006 to 2013 was
without the sanction of law and completely opposed to the principles
laid down by this Court –Period of solitary confinement is for about
10 years – Letter by the medical professional show ill effects on the
well-being of the accused due to incarceration in solitary
confinement – Thus, to meet the ends of justice, the death sentence
commuted to life imprisonment for minimum 30 years.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Undue long delay in execution of death sentence
would entitle the condemned prisoner to pray for commuting the
death sentence to that of life imprisonment. The alleged period
in the instant matter is of two years and three months i.e., starting
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
629
from the receipt of the mercy petition on 3.3.2011 by the Central
Government till the disposal on 15.5.2013. It must be stated that
soon after the receipt of the said mercy petition, the Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India forwarded the mercy petition
to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Karnataka so that
the Governor, Karnataka could consider the mercy petition first.
In the meantime, on 9.3.2011 in Writ Petition No.52 of 2011
preferred by the appellant, this Court had granted stay of
execution of death sentence. The matter was considered by the
State Cabinet on 7.5.2012 which decided to approve the note
prepared by the Home Department recommending rejection of
the mercy petition. The matter was then placed before the Hon’ble
Governor who rejected the mercy petition on 06.06.2012. The
copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Governor and relevant
documents were forwarded by the State Government to the
Central Government on 30.08.2012. On 18.09.2012, certain
information was sought by the Central Government from the State
Government which was furnished to the Central Government on
26.12.2012. The matter was thereafter taken up at the Central
Government level. The Ministry of Home Affairs prepared an
appropriate note for the Hon’ble President who after considering
the entirety of the matter rejected the mercy petition on
12.05.2013. [Para 14, 15][652-D-H; 653-A-B]
1.2 The entire period beginning from 03.03.2011 to
15.05.2013 spanning over a period of 2 years and 3 months saw
disposal of mercy petition at two different levels, one, by the
Hon’ble Governor and other by the Hon’ble President. All the
while, there was an order of stay granted by this Court on 19.3.2011
which was operating all through. First and foremost, the time
taken by each of these authorities and the functionaries assisting
them cannot be called or termed as “inordinate delay” and
secondly, it was not as if every passing day was adding to the
agony of appellant. The order of stay of execution had put the
matter in a different perspective. In the given facts and
circumstances of the case, the first submission cannot be
accepted. [Para 16, 17][653-C-E]
2.1 As regards solitary confinement, the letter written by
Medical Officer, Belgaum Central Prison on 6.11.2011 did say
B. A. UMESH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[202

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