SMT. TRIVENIBEN & -ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 07-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. TRIVENIBEN & -ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 7, 1989 
[G.L. OZA, MURARI MOHON DUTT, K.N. SINGH, 
K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Death sentence-Undue 
long delay in execution-When justifies commutation to life 
imprisonment-Whether Supreme Court can reopen the conclusions 
reached by the court sentencing the prisoner-Earlier judgment of c 
Court-Whether can be challenged on ground of violation of funda-
mental rights-Mercy petitions~Expeditious disposal of-Necessity 
for. 
Art. 20( 1)-Death sentence-Securing convict in prison until 
execution of sentence-Whether amounts to double jeopardy. 
D 
Art. 21-'-Person sentenced to death-Inordinate delay in execu-
tion of sentence-Whether amounts to mental torture-Necessity for 
observance of procedural fairness emphasised. 
Arts. 141-145-Larger Bench of the Court-Whether entitled to 
E 
overrule view of a smaller Bench. 
Arts. 72, 161~Mercy Petitions-Expeditious disposal of-Neces-
sity for. 
. 
t' 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sections 413, 414 and 354(3)-
F 
Delay in. execution of death sentence-Whether can be a ground for 
commutation to life imprisonmeµt-Time taken upto final verdict-
Whether to be excluded in considering delay in execution of death 
sentence-Whether any time limit can be prescribed for execution of 
death sentence-Good conduct of prisoner after final verdict-Whether 
can be ground for commutation. 
G 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120-B, 121, 132, 302, 307 & 
396--Death sentence-Whether constitutionally valid. 
The accused were convicted under s. 302 I.P .C. and sentenced to· 
death by the trial court. The High Court confirmed their conviction and 
H 
509 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989) 1 S.C.R. 
A sentence. This Court dismissed their special leave petitions/appeals and 
subsequenfreview petitions. Their mercy petitions to the President and/ 
or Governor were also rejected. Therefore, they approached this Court 
by way of Writ Petitions for setting aside the death sentence and sub-
stituting it by a sentence of life imprisonment on the ground of pro-
longed delay in the execution. They contended that the dehumanising 
B 
factor of prolonged delay with the mental torture in confinement in jail 
had rendered the execution unconstitutional. 
c 
In view of the conflicting decisions of this Court in T. V. 
Vaitheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1983) 2 SCR 348 and Sher Singh & 
Ors. v. The State of Punjab, [19831 2 SCR 582 and observations in Javed 
Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra, [19851 2 SCR 8 
on the question of delay, the writ petitions were referred to a tive judges 
Bench. 
While a Bench of two Judges held in· Vaitheeswaran's case that 
two years delay in execution of the sentence after the judgment of the 
D 
trial court would entitle the condemned prisoner to ask for commuta-
tion of his sentence of death to imprisonment for life, a three Judges' 
Bench held, in Sher Singh' s case, that delay alone is not good enough for 
commutation and two year's rule could not be laid down in the cases of 
delay and that the Court in the context of the nature of the offence and 
delay, could consider the question of commutation of death sentence. In 
E 
Javed's case this Court observed that where the condemned man had 
suffered more than two years and nine months and was repenting and 
there was nothing adverse against him in the jail records, this period of 
two years and nine months with the sentence of death heavily weighing 
on his mind, would entitle him for commutation of sentence of death 
into imprisonment for life. 
F 
The questions for consideration in these cases were: (a) whether 
prolonged delay in execution of the sentence of death rendered it 
inexecutable and entitled the accused to demand the alternate sentence 
of imprisonment for life, (b) what should be the starting point for 
computing this delay, (c) what were the rights of a condemned prisoner 
G 
who had been sentenced to death but not executed, and (d) what could 
be t.he circumstances which should be considered along with the time 
that had been taken before the sentence is executed. 
On October 11, 1988 this Court dismissed all the writ petitions, 
except Writ Petition No. 1566of1985, which was partly allowed and the 
H sentence of death awarded to the accused was substituted by the sen-
I 
"'* 
SMT. TRIVENIBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
511 
tence of imprisonment. Over-ruling the decision in V

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