LexV. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014} 1 S.C.R. 1093 V. SRIHARAN @ MURUGAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2012) FEBRUARY 18, 2014 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: A B c Art. 21 rlw Art. 721161- Delay in execution of death sentence - Delay of 11 years in decision of mercy petition under Art. 72 - Held: Exorbitant delay in disposal of mercy petition renders the process of execution of death sentence arbitrary, whimsical and capricious and, therefore, 0 inexecutable -- Furthermore, such imprisonment, occasioned by inordinate delay in disposal of mercy petitions, is beyond the sentence accorded by the court and to that extent is extra- legal and excessive -- The unreasonable delay caused qualifies as the supervening circumstance, which warrants for E commutation of sentence of death into life imprisonment - Death sentence of three petitioners commuted into imprisonment for life - Life imprisonment means end of one's life, subject o remission - Sentence/Sentencing. Art. 21 - Commutation of death sentence due to delay in F its execution- Held: Prolonged delay in execution of death sentence, by itself, gives rise to mental suffering and agony which renders the subsequent execution of death sentence inhuman and barbaric - There is no obligation on the convict to demonstrate specific ill effects of suffering and agony on F his mind and body as a prerequisite for commutation of sentence of death. Arts. 721161 - Delay in disposal of mercy petition - Held: 1093 H 1094 Si.JPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R. A Clemency procedure under Art. 721161 provides a ray of hope to the condemned prisoner and his family members for commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment and, therefore. the executive should step up and exercise clemency power within a reasonable time - Another criteria B may be added to the existing yardsticks so as to require consideration of the delay that may have occurred in disposal of a mercy petition. Art.32 and Art. 721161 - Writ petition for commutation of death sentence due to delay in decision of many petition - C Scope of - Held: relief sought for under these kind of petitions is not per se review of the order passed under Art. 721161 on merits but on the ground of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution to all the citizens including D the death row convicts. The petitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court seeking a writ of declaration that the execution of sentence of death pursuant to the letter No. F.No.14/1/ 1999-Judicial Cell dated 12.08.2011 issued by the Union E of India, was unconstitutional, and prayed for commutation of the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The writ petitions raised vital issues pertaining to violation of fundamental rights of death row convicts ensuing from inordinate delay caused at the hands of F executive in deciding the mercy petitions filed under Art. 72/161 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The writ petitions were transferred to and heard by the Supreme Court of India. G Allowing the petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 In Shatrughan Chauhan"' this Court has held that unexplained delay in execution of sentence of death on the accused notwithstanding the existence of supervening circumstances, is in violation of Art. 21 of H the Constitution. One of the supervening circumstances V. SRIHARAN@ MURUGAN v. UNION OF INDIA 1095 sanctioned by this Court for commutation of death A \ sentence into life imprisonment is the undue, inordinate and,unr~asonable delay in execution of death sentence as).t attribut_es to torture. The two principles stipulated in the judgment for commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment on the ground of delay as the supervening B circumstance are: firstly, that the delay occurred must be inordinate and secondly, that the delay must not b~ caused at the instance of the accused. [para 2-3] [1099- E-G; 1100-E-F] *Shatrughan Chauhan &,Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. C (2014) 1 SCR 609 - relied on. • · . . 1.2 In the instant case, the mercy petitions V.)ere rejected by the Governor of Tamil Nadu on 25.04.2000. Consequently, the mercy petitions were forwarded to the D President of India on 26.04.2000 for consideration under Art.' 72 of the Constitution. The President, on 12.08.2011, rejected these mercy petitions after a delay of more than 11 year
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.