1984 (11) TMI 345 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in execution of the death sentence.
2. Reformation and repentance of the petitioner.
3. Application of Article 21 of the Constitution regarding prolonged detention.

Summary:

Delay in Execution of the Death Sentence:
The petitioner, convicted and sentenced to death for multiple murders, has been under the sentence of death for two years and nine months. The Supreme Court considered whether this delay entitles the petitioner to invoke Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court referenced T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu ([1983] 2 S.C.C. 68), which opined that a delay exceeding two years in the execution of a death sentence is sufficient to invoke Article 21. The Court noted that prolonged delay can render the death penalty inhuman and degrading, as it causes excruciating mental anguish and suffering.

Reformation and Repentance of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, aged about 22 years, has shown genuine repentance and a desire to atone for his crimes. The Superintendent of Yeravada Central Prison reported no adverse behavior during his incarceration. The Court acknowledged the sincerity of the petitioner's repentance and his desire to serve humanity if given a chance.

Application of Article 21:
The Court discussed the implications of Article 21 in light of various precedents, including Menaka Gandhi, Sunil Batra, and Bachan Singh. It emphasized that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive and that prisoners retain their Fundamental Rights. The Court reiterated that any procedure depriving a person of life or liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, which includes the execution of a sentence. The Court concluded that prolonged detention awaiting execution constitutes an unjust, unfair, and unreasonable procedure, thus violating Article 21.

The Court also referenced Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, where it was held that the fixation of a two-year time limit for delay does not align with common experience. However, the Court in the present case found that the overall circumstances entitled the petitioner to the protection of Article 21.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the death sentence and substituted it with life imprisonment, allowing the petition based on the prolonged delay in execution and the petitioner's genuine repentance.