DAYA SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 24-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
DAYA SINGH 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 24, 1991 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India: Art. 32-Death sentence-Delay in execu-
tion-Writ petition - once rejected-Same plea not to be raised by 
repeated petitions-Subsequent mercy petition not disposed of expedi-
tiously-Continued detention in prison not rendered completely irrele-
vant and considered as a circumstance assuming sign_ificance with subse-
quent circumstances-Death sentence-Substituted by life imprisonment. 
The petitioner was convicted of murder and was sentenced to death 
by the Sessions Court on 13.12.1978. His appeal to the High Court and 
Special Leave Petition to this Court were dismissed. His mercy petitions 
to the Government and to the President of India were also rejected. The 
execution of the sentence remained stayed till it stood vacated on. 
11.10.1988 on dismissal of a writ petition•• under Article 32 of the 
Constitution flied by his brother for conversion of the death sentence 
into one of life imprisonment on the ground of delay in its execution. On 
18.11.1988 the petitioner again filed a mercy petition before the Gover-
nor and his execution was once more stayed, and since then he was 
awaiting the f"mal outcome of his petition. 
Meanwhile, on 24.12.1990, a prisoner sent a letter praying for 
release of the petitioner, which was treated as a writ petition on behalf 
of the convict under Article 32 of the Constitution. 
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the death sen-
tence awarded to him should be quashed as there had been inexcusable 
delay in executing the same. 
On consideration of nature and effect of the delay in execution of 
G 
the sentence after the petitioner med mercy petition on 18.) 1.1988, In 
the light of the principles laid down in Triveniben' s case**. · 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Once a petition for conversion of death sentence into 
H one of life imprisonment is rejected, the plea raised in the petition so 
462 
I 
• 
"I "" J. 
~ 
~ 
"I 
y 
' -1--
DAYA SINGH v. U.0.1. 
463 
rejected, cannot be permitted to be raised by repeated petitions. But 
this does not deprive the convict of his right to renew the prayer on 
fresh circumstances arising later and, therefore, not considered. [46511-C l 
2. In the instant case, the petitioner could not succeed on the 
basis of the delay prior to October, 1988 as it had been considered in the 
earlier petition which was dismissed; but the fact that the petitioner had 
been continuously detained in prison since 1972 was not rendered com-
pletely irrelevant and should be considered merely as a circumstance 
assuming significance as_ a result of the relevant circumsta!ll'.!· arisin_B 
subsequent to the judgment rendered in October, 1988. [465E-F; 467C-D l 
3. Tbe initial reason for tbe further delay has been a fresh mercy 
petition filed by the petitioner. Althougbt tbe stay of the execution was 
certainly appropriate in the event of not rejecting the prayer at once, 
yet the matter should have been disposed of expeditiously and not kept 
in abeyance as was done. If the concerned officers had bestowed the 
necessary attention to the matter and devoted the time its urgency 
needed,_ undoubtedly, the entire proceS!i of t~ consideration of the 
questions refe_rred would __ have been completed within a reasonable 
period without leaving any yawning or "embarrassing gap". There bad 
· been an avoidable delay, considerable in the totality of circumstances, 
for which the petitioner was in no way responsible. [466D-E; 467A-B] 
4. The only relief a convict awaiting execution of death sentence 
can get from this Court on the ground of de_lay. is conversion of the 
sentence into that of life imprisonment. [467F J 
5. In view of all the circumstances of the case, the petitioner's 
death sentence is substituted by imprisonment for life and he would be 
governed and dealt with as a life convict for all purposes. [ 476E, G J 
** Smt. Triveniben v. State of Gujarat, [1989] 1 S.C.C. 678, 
followed. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 133 of G 
1991. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
R.K. Jain, Ravi Prakash, Mrs. Swati Kapoor Ms. Abha R. 
Sharma and Ms. Rajni K. Prasad for the Petitioner. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 2 S.C.R. 
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Kusum 
Choudhary, C. Ramesh and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents. 
The 

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