Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1984 (11) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... jail and the long lapse of time since the passing of the sentence of death on him, the execution of the sentence of death may he stopped and the sentence may be commuted to one of imprisonment for life. In his petition he has frankly confessed to the dastardly crimes committed by him. He has stated that he now releases the enormity of what he has done and wants to atone and make good the injury inflicted upon society by him by striving to serve humanity if given a chance to do so. Moved by the apparent ring of sincerity in the sentiments expressed by the petitioner in his petition, one of us (E. S. Venkataramiah, J.) admitted the petition and later it has been directed by the Court that the petition should be heard by a Bench consisting of the two of us. On 14. 9. 1984 we called for a report from the Superintendent, Yeravada Central Prison, Pune to report about the conduct and behavior of the prisoner during the period of his incarceration. The report of the Superintendent Central Jail is to the effect that so far nothing adverse to the petitioner has came to the notice of the authority. The question therefore is what is to be done in the circumstances ? The petitioner is an young .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... say that the jurisprudence of the civilised world, much of which is derived from common law principles and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments in the English Bill of Rights, has recognised and acknowledged that prolonged delay in executing a sentence of death can make the punishment when it comes inhuman and degrading. As the Supreme Court of California commented in Anderson case, it is cruel and has dehumanising effects. Sentence of death is one thing; sentence of death followed by lengthy imprisonment prior to execution is another. It is of course true that a period of anguish and suffering is an inevitable consequence of sentence of death. But a prolongation of it beyond the time necessary for appeal and consideration of reprieve is not. And it is no answer to say that the man will struggle to stay alive. In a truth, it is this ineradicable human desire which makes prolongation inhuman and degrading. The anguish of alternating hope and despair, the agony of uncertainty, the consequences of such suffering on the mental, emotional, and physical integrity and health of the individual are vividly described in the evidence of the effect of the delay in the circu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed detention to await the execution of a sentence of death is an unjust, unfair and unreasonable procedure and the only way to undo the wrong is to quash the sentence of death. In the United State of America where the right to a speedy trial is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, the denial of a speedy trial has been held to entitle an accused person to the dismissal of the indictment or the vacation of the sentence (vide Strunk v. United States [1973] 37 L Ed. 2d S6). Analogy of American law is not permissible, but interpreting our Constitution sui generis, as we are bound to do, we find no impediment in holding that the dehumanising factor of prolonged delay in the execution of a sentence of death has the Constitutional implication of depriving a person of his life in an unjust, unfair and unreasonable way as to offend the Constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except - according to procedure established by law. The appropriate relief in such a case is to vacate the sentence of death. We proceeded to consider what delay could be considered prolonged enough to attract the Constitutional protection of Art. 21, We thought that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is not barred on the ground that a final decision has been rendered already. That final decision is not a decision on new facts. Courts are never powerless to do justice, that is say, to ensure that the processes of law do not result in undue misery, suffering or hardship That is why, even after the final seal of approval is placed upon a sentence of death, this Court has exercised its power to direct, ex debito justitiae, that though the sentence was justified when passed, its execution, in the circumstances of the case, is not justified by reason of the unduly long time which has elapsed since the confirmation of that sentence by this Court. Some of us dealing with this case have been parties to decisions directing in appropriate cases, that the death sentence shall not be executed by reason of supervening circumstances. They then proceeded to agree with our agreement with the view expressed by Lord Scarman and Lord Brightman. They said:- Like our learned Brethren, we too consider that the . view expressed in this behalf by Lord Scarman and Lord Brightman in the Privy Council decision of Neel Riley 1982 Crl. Law Review 679 is. with respect, correct. The majority in that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts voice is the voice of justice and fairplay. That voice can never be silenced on the ground that the time to heed to its imperatives is long since past in the story of a trial. It reverberates through all stages-the trial, the sentence, the incarceration and finally, the execution of the sentence, After saying so much, the learned Judges found it impossible A to agree, with that part of the judgment in T.V. Vatheesawaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), where it had been said that delay exceeding two years in executing a sentence of death should be considered sufficient to entitle the person under sentence of death to invoke Att. 21 and demand the quashing of the sentence of death. The reason was, they said The fixation of time limit of two years does not seem to us to accord with the common experience of the time normally consumed by the litigative process and the proceedings before the executive. They also said that besides delay there were also other factors to be taken into account while considering the question whether the sentence of death should be vacated. The observations of the learned Judges purporting to dissent from the view taken in T'atheeswaral1's cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates