1983 (3) TMI 298 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a delay exceeding two years in the execution of a death sentence warrants setting aside that sentence.
2. Whether the death sentence should be vacated due to prolonged delay in execution and other supervening circumstances.

Summary:

1. Delay in Execution of Death Sentence:
The primary issue addressed is whether a delay exceeding two years in the execution of a death sentence must be considered sufficient for setting aside that sentence. The petitioners, convicted u/s 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to death, argued that the delay in execution entitled them to have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment, relying on the precedent set in T.V. Vatheeswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu. The court in Vatheeswaran had formulated the question as whether prolonged delay and inhuman treatment post-sentencing could justify commutation of the death sentence.

2. Judicial Precedents and Principles:
The judgment reviewed various precedents, including decisions from the Federal Court of India, Privy Council, and U.S. Supreme Court. It highlighted that while prolonged delay in executing a death sentence is a significant factor, a rigid rule (such as the two-year rule in Vatheeswaran) is impractical. The court emphasized that the delay must be assessed case-by-case, considering factors like the convict's use of legal remedies and the reasons for the delay.

3. Supervening Circumstances:
The court acknowledged that subsequent events and supervening circumstances must be considered to determine if executing the death sentence would be unjust. It noted that the prolonged agony and uncertainty faced by death row inmates could render the execution of the sentence inhuman and degrading, as per Article 21 of the Constitution.

4. Case-Specific Analysis:
In the present case, the petitioners' death sentences were upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court, with delays attributed to various legal proceedings initiated by the petitioners. The court asserted that merely the passage of time does not automatically warrant commutation of the death sentence. The nature of the offense, societal impact, and potential for recurrence are crucial factors in this determination.

5. Executive Responsibility:
The judgment urged the government to expedite the disposal of petitions filed u/s 72 and 161 of the Constitution or u/s 432 and 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that delays in these processes undermine justice.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the death sentence in this case could not be vacated solely due to the delay in execution. It decided to hear further arguments on whether executing the death sentence would be unjust and unfair in the specific circumstances of the case, and issued a notice to the Government of Punjab for an explanation of the delay.