LexMAHENDRA NATH DAS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 5 S.C.R. 1053
MAHENDRA NATH DAS
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
{Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2013}
MAY 1, 2013
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
A
B
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 72 - Murder -
Accused-appellant convicted and sentenced to death - He C
submitted mercy petition to the President under Article 72 of
the Constitution and prayed for commutation of the death
sentence into life imprisonment - Petition rejected after 12
years - Propriety of - Held: Not propf!f;..- 12 years delay in
disposal of the mercy petition sufficient for commutation of the
D
sentence of death into life imprisonment - Sentence of df';ath
awarded to appellant accordingly commuted into life
imprisonment - Sentence I Sentencing - Commutation of
sentence.
The appellant was convicted by the trial Court and
sentenced to death on the premise that he committed the
murder of a person in a most foul and gruesome manner.
The conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High
Court as also this Court.
Thereafter, the appellant submitted a mercy petition
E
F
to the President under Article 72 of the Constitution and
prayed for commutation of the sentence of death into life
imprisonment. The petition was rejected after 12 years.
Writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the G
rejection of his mercy petition was dismissed by the High
Court.
The question which arose for consideration in the
1053
H
1054
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 5 S.C.R.
A instant appeal was whether 12 years delay in the disposal
of the mercy petition filed by the appellant under Article
72 of the Constitution was sufficient for commutation of
the sentence of death into life imprisonment and the High
Court committed an error by dismissing the writ petition
B filed by him.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the appellant's case, there was a long
time gap of 12 years between the submission of the
C petition under Article 72 of the Constitution and rejection
thereof. The Union of India has tried to explain this time
gap by citing correspondence between the Central
Government and
the
Government of Assam,
consideration of the matter in different levels in the
D Ministry of Home Affairs etc. However, no explanation has
been given for the time gap of three years between
20.6.2001, i.e., the date on which the then Home Minister
made recommendation for rejection of the mercy petition
filed by the appellant, and September, 2004, when the file
E again started moving within the Ministry and five years
between 30.9.2005, i.e., the date on which the President
opined that the me-rcy petition of the appellant be
accepted and September, 2010, when the file was actually
summoned back by the Ministry of Home Affairs. That
F apart, what is most intriguing is that even though in note
dated 5.10.2010 prepared by the Joint Secretary, Ministry
of Home Affairs, a reference was made to note dated
30.9.2005 of the then President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam,
while making recommendation on 12.10.2010 to the
G successor in the office of the President that the
appellant's mercy petition be rejected, the Home Minister
did not even make a mention of note dated 30.9.2005. In
the summary prepared by the Home Ministry for the
President's consideration, which was signed by the
Home Minister on 18.10.2010, also no reference was made
H
MAHENDRA NATH DAS v. UNION OF INDIA
1055
to the order and note dated 30.9.2005 of the then
A
President. Why this was done has not been explained by
the respondents. Though, the file containing the petition
filed by the appellant and various notings recorded
therein must have been place before the President,
omission to make a mention of the order passed by her
B
predecessor and note dated 30.9.2005 from the summary
prepared for her consideration leads to an inference that
the President was kept in dark about the view expressed
by her predecessor and was deprived of an opportunity
to objectively consider the entire matter. [Para 20] [1072-
c
A-F]
1.2. It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents
nor any material has been produced before this Court. to
show that the Government of India had placed the file
before the then President for review of the order recorded
D
by him on 30.9.2005 or the President who finally decided
the appellant's petition on 8.5.2011 was requested to
reconsider the decision of her predecessor. Therefore, it
must be held that theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.