LexJAGDISH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
815
JAGDISH
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Review Petition (Crl.) No.591 of 2014)
in
(Criminal Appeal No.338 of 2007)
with
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 197 of 2014)
FEBRUARY 21, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA, DEEPAK GUPTA AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing – Commutation of death sentence to life
imprisonment – Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death
for the murder of his wife and five children by both Trial Court and
High Court – Petitioner’s appeal dismissed by Supreme Court and
the death sentence was confirmed vide order dated 18.09.2009 –
Petitioner filed mercy petition addressed to the President of India
through the jail authorities on 13.10.2009 – Petition forwarded by
the authorities on 15.10.2013 – President of India rejected the
petition on 16.07.2014 – Writ petition filed by the petitioner
challenging the rejection of his mercy petition – Review Petition
also filed seeking review of the judgment of Supreme Court dated
18.09.2009 – Held: Review Petition not entertained on the merits
of the case – Three courts have come to concurrent finding of fact
that it was the petitioner who murdered his wife and five children –
No reason to take a view different from the one taken earlier –
However, in the present case there was an inordinate and
un-explained delay of more than 4 years on the part of the State in
forwarding the mercy petition leading to delay of almost 5 years in
deciding the mercy petition – State also did not file any counter
affidavit in the Writ Petition even though notice was issued 4 years
back on 18.11.2014 and service was effected within a month of
issuance of notice – Petitioner has been behind bars for almost
about 14 years – Death sentence is the exception and has to be
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 815
815
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
awarded in the rarest of rare cases – Keeping in view all the
circumstances of the case, regardless of the brutal nature of crime,
the present is not a fit case where death sentence should be executed
– Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment – However, keeping
in view the nature of crime and the fact that 6 innocent lives were
lost, life imprisonment in this case shall mean the entire remaining
life of the petitioner and he shall not be released till his death.
Partly allowing the review petition as well as the writ
petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As far as the Government of India or the
Secretariat of the President of India is concerned, there is no
delay in dealing with the mercy petition and the same has been
dealt with expeditiously. However, the State of Madhya Pradesh
has given no explanation for the delay of more than 4 years in
forwarding the mercy petition.[Para 8] [820-D-E]
1.2 Not only was there a long, inordinate and un-explained
delay on the part of the State of Madhya Pradesh but to make
matters worse, the State of Madhya Pradesh did not even care to
file any counter affidavit in the Writ Petition even though notice
was issued 4 years back on 18.11.2014 and service was effected
within a month of issuance of notice. The delay in forwarding the
petition is totally un-explained and this Court cannot countenance
an un-explained delay of more than 4 years. The mercy petition
is the last hope of a person on death row. In cases where death
sentence has to be executed the same should be done as early as
possible. [Paras 9, 10] [820-E-H; 821-A]
1.3 Death sentence is the exception and has to be awarded
in the rarest of rare cases. Keeping in view all the circumstances
of the case, including the un-explained delay of 4 years in
forwarding the mercy petition by the State of Madhya Pradesh
leading to delay of almost 5 years in deciding the mercy petition
and the fact that the petitioner has been incarcerated for almost
14 years, regardless of the brutal nature of crime this is not a fit
case where death sentence should be executed and we,
accordingly commute the death sentence to that of life. However,
keeping in view the nature of crime and the fact that 6 innocent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
817
lives were lost, it is directed that life imprisonment in this case
shall mean the entire remaining life of the petitioner and he shall
not be released till his death. [Para 12] [821-B-D]
V. Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India and Others
(2014) 4 SCC 242 : [2014] 1 SCR 1093; Ajay Kumar
Pal v. Union of India and Another (2015) 2 SCC 478 :
[2014] 12 SCR 441 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[201Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.