Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, November 23, 2024

Decide Mercy Petitions Against Death Sentence At The Earliest So That Convicts Won’t Take Advantage Of Delay: SC

Posted in: Criminal Law
Sun, Apr 16, 23, 21:12, 2 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5744
Maharashtra vs Renuka @ Rinku @ Ratan Kiran Shinde that mercy petitions in death penalty cases are decided and disposed at the earliest so that convicts won’t take advantage of delay

While taking a very strong, simple and straightforward stand in consonance with the rule of law, the Apex Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled The State of Maharashtra & Ors vs Renuka @ Rinku @ Ratan Kiran Shinde @ Ors. in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12674/2022 and cited in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 305 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction that was pronounced as recently as on April 13, 2023 directed all the State Governments to ensure that mercy petitions in death penalty cases are decided and disposed at the earliest so that convicts won’t take advantage of delay.

Moreover, even the convict is subjected to worst torture with death penalty looming over him/her since decades before the mercy petition is decided which is the worst torture and no country with respect for human rights can ever allow this to happen that for decades no decision is taken on mercy petition due to the useless legal formalities and complicated procedures which makes a mockery of our legal system!

It was also held that even if death penalty is to be commuted in view of inordinate delay in deciding mercy petition, an order to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment for natural life without any remission ought to be passed. The Bench of Apex Court comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravi Kumar passed the direction in a plea by State of Maharashtra challenging a judgment of the Bombay High Court in which the High Court commuted the death sentences imposed on the accused to life imprisonment.

It must be asked: Why should it take 3 days or 3 weeks or 3 months or 3 years or 30 years just to decide a mercy petition? One day or at the most two days should be more than enough to decide on a mercy petition. Why the biggest mockery of rule of law is made by applauding the mercy petition not being decided even after three decades as we saw in case of killers of Rajiv Gandhi way back in 1991?

It is a no-brainer that the biggest question worth more than a billion dollar that still looms large is: Should Centre still feel very proud that this is sending a very good message among all the terrorists like the killers of former Chief Minister of Punjab also that even after committing the most ghastly murder of Chief Ministers and Prime Ministers still they are able to cool their heels in jails for decades and decades without being subjected to be hanged?

Should there even be mercy petition for such terrorists who strike at the very core of our nation by attacking PM and CM? My best friend Sageer Khan way back in 1993 was deadly against terrorists being given the benefit of mercy petition and was of the unequivocal view that they should be hanged at the earliest so that the right message percolates down that those who commit terror acts would not be spared ever and they would have to face the most disastrous consequences for having dared to commit terror acts!

In my college days, I always mistook dacoits for terrorists but my best friend Sageer Khan clarified all my doubts. He said that:
An ordinary criminal like a dacoit or rapist or robber or murderer or any other ordinary criminal never goes to Pakistan or any other foreign country for getting training on how to commit dacoity or rape or robbery or murder but a terrorist always go and get such training to commit terror acts. Not stopping here, he gets all type of financial and other kind of aid from abroad to perpetrate direct attack on the very identity of our nation as a whole. Ordinary criminals attack and affect adversely either one or few persons but in case of terrorists things are quite different because terrorists don’t attack just one or few individuals rather they attack and affect adversely our nation as a whole whom they want to destroy completely. A terrorist always declares war against the nation but an ordinary criminal never does so. An ordinary criminal like a rapist or a dacoit will never attack our nuclear installations by which our entire nation can be wiped away but terrorists always place our nuclear installations on their hit list as they are a part of a proxy war waged by some of our neighbouring countries like Pakistan and it is a fact that if they are able to execute their evil design, our entire nation can be eliminated in one go! So why should we allow terrorists to avail of mercy petition like other ordinary criminals? Sageer Khan also said that:
It also cannot be denied that a terrorist always gets all types of aid from foreign countries but an ordinary criminal gets no such help. An ordinary criminal will never attack national symbols like Parliament, Red Fort, Supreme Court but terrorists always dream of attacking such places and sometimes have been able to partially attack them also. What is however most intriguing is that our Indian politicians overlook everything and find nothing wrong in holding regular talks with them only and in passing time and again resolutions in their favour and not for ordinary criminals. An enemy soldier during war attack our army soldiers but terrorists are worse than them as they rarely attack men in uniform and always enjoy attacking innocent people especially pilgrims to holy shrines and still many of our leaders plead mercy for them. Do they still deserve mercy? It goes without saying that they are a potential threat to the very existence of our nation yet our government is not prepared to hang them even after they are convicted and sentenced to death by the Apex Court itself and forward puerile excuses for its inability in deciding on their mercy petitions for decades!

Needless to say, even our former PM Dr Manmohan Singh had time and again warned of the terrorists launching attack on our nuclear installations by which our entire nation can be destroyed. Even PM Narender Modi keep reminding world leaders of the grave threat posed by terrorists to the whole world at large! Still should they be allowed to file mercy petition as a birth right? Why can’t Centre amend the rules to meet the present scenario and abolish mercy petition for terrorists?

At the very outset, this notable judgment sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth that:
Leave granted. We have heard Shri Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the original accused and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in next para that, Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18-01-2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CRLWP No. 3103/2014, by which the High Court has commuted the death sentences imposed on the accused to one of the life imprisonment, the State of Maharashtra and others have preferred the present appeal.

In hindsight, the Bench then observes that:
From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground that there was an inordinate unexplained delay on the part of the State/Governor of the State in not deciding the mercy petition(s) preferred by the accused which, as such, were kept pending for about 7 years and 10 months.

While citing the most relevant case laws, the Bench then points out in next para that:
In the case of Jagdish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) 14 SCC 156, this Court directed to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment taking into consideration the delay in disposal of the mercy petition of above 5 years. There are other decision also commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground of delay in disposal of the mercy petition(s) as under -

Sl. No. Particulars Citation

  1. Madhu Mehta v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 62
  2. Daya Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 61
  3. Mahendra Nath Dass v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 6 SCC 253
  4. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1
  5. Navneet Kaur v. NCT of Delhi (2014) 7 SCC 264
  6. V. Sriharan Alias Murugan v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 242
  7. Ajay Kumar Pal v. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 478
  8. Union of India & Ors. v. Dharam Pal . (2019) 15 SCC 388.


Most brilliantly and most forcefully, the Bench then postulates that:
It is true that the gravity of the offence can be a relevant consideration while commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment, however, inordinate delay in disposal of the mercy petitions can also be said to be a relevant consideration while commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment.

If even after the final conclusion even upto this Court, even, thereafter there is an inordinate delay in not deciding the mercy petition, the object and purpose of the death sentence would be frustrated. Therefore, as such, all efforts shall be made by the State Government and/or the concerned authorities to see that the mercy petitions are decided and disposed of at the earliest, so that even the accused can also know his fate and even justice is also done to the victim.

Most remarkably, the Bench then enunciates that:
In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment is not required to be interfered with. However, at the same time, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as Ms.Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of India are justified in making the grievance that in death case and even the Hon’ble High Court is right in commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment, in that case also even considering the various decisions of this Court including in the case of Jagdish (supra) and looking to the seriousness and gravity of the offence committed by the accused, namely nine persons were killed, the High Court ought to have passed an order to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment for natural life without any remission. If such an order would have been passed, it would be in the fitness of things and may give solace to the victims.

As a corollary, the Bench then directs that:
In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment is hereby modified and it is directed that the accused to undergo life imprisonment for natural life and without any remission. The present Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Most significantly, the Bench then mandates that:
Before we part with the present order, we observe and direct all the States/appropriate authorities before whom the mercy petitions are to be filed and/or who are required to decide the mercy petitions against the death sentence, such mercy petitions are decided at the earliest so that the benefit of delay in not deciding the mercy petitions is not accrued to the accused and the accused are not benefited by such an inordinate delay and the accused may not take the disadvantage of such inordinate delay.

What’s more, the Bench then hastens to add that:
We appreciate the efforts made by Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned counsel, who has assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae.

Finally, the Bench concludes by holding that:
The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories.

In conclusion, the Apex Court has most sagaciously directed all the authorities to decide the mercy petition against the death sentence at the earliest so that convicts are not able to take advantage of delay and to keep the mercy petition pending for decades makes no sense and even noted jurist and former Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee among many others have favoured mercy petition to be decided at the earliest so that those sentenced to death also come to learn of their fate soon.

Our law makers who are reviewing our penal laws must take the lead in taking the requisite initiative in this direction by fixing the time limit of deciding mercy petitions so that the cases are decided at the earliest and not kept pending for many decades which makes just no sense at all as it violates the legal rights of both the victim and the convicted person! It brooks no more delay now anymore!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top