 |
| Old Sparky, the electric chair used at Sing Sing Prison, State of New York. |
You can find the whole judgment here.
Facts
1. By judgment dated 25.08.2001,
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar was sentenced to death by the Designated Judge,
Delhi. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, the Court
confirmed the death sentence and dismissed his appeal. Against the dismissal of
the appeal by this Court, the accused preferred Review Petition which was also
dismissed.
2. Soon after the dismissal of
the review petition, the accused submitted a mercy petition to the President of
India under Article 72 of the Constitution in 2003 and prayed for
commutation of his sentence. During the
pendency of the petition filed under Article 72, he also filed Curative
Petition which was also dismissed.
3. Subsequently, on 13.06.2011,
it was communicated to the Jail Officials by the government that the President
of India has rejected the mercy petition.
4. In 2011 itself, the wife of
the accused preferred a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court praying for
quashing the communication dated 13.06.2011. The court arrived at the
conclusion that there was an unreasonable delay of 8 years in disposal of
mercy petition, which is one of the grounds for commutation of death sentence
to life imprisonment as per the established judicial precedents. However,
the Supreme Court Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that when
the accused is convicted under TADA, there is no question of showing any
sympathy or considering supervening circumstances for commutation of death
sentence.
5. Aggrieved by the said
dismissal, the wife of the accused preferred Review Petition which was also
dismissed by the Court in 2013. Subsequently, the wife of the accused,
petitioner filed the Curative Petition for consideration by the Supreme Court.
6. For deciding the present case,
the court took help of a recent decision, Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v.
Union of India & Ors. Let us discuss it in brief.
Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr.
v. Union of India & Ors.[1]
In this case, the court commuted
the sentence of death imposed on the petitioners therein to imprisonment for
life. In the aforesaid verdict, the Court validated the established principle
and held that unexplained/unreasonable/inordinate delay in disposal of mercy
petition is one of the supervening circumstances for commutation of death
sentence to life imprisonment.
While deciding the aforesaid
issue in the above decision, the Bench was simultaneously called upon to decide
a specific issue viz., whether is there a rationality in distinguishing
between an offence under Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act for considering the supervening circumstance for
commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment?
The court said that it is of the
view that only delay which could not have been avoided even if the matter was
proceeded with a sense of urgency or was caused in essential preparations for
execution of sentence may be the relevant factors under such petitions in
Article 32. Considerations such as the gravity of the crime, extraordinary
cruelty involved therein or some horrible consequences for society caused by
the offence are not relevant after it was ruled in Bachan Singh vs. State
of Punjab[2]
that the sentence of death can only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases.
Meaning, of course, all death sentences imposed are impliedly the most
heinous and barbaric and rarest of its kind. The legal effect of the
extraordinary depravity of the offence exhausts itself when court sentences the
person to death for that offence. Law does not prescribe an additional
period of imprisonment in addition to the sentence of death for any such
exceptional depravity involved in the offence.
Thus, the court finally held that
unexplained delay is one of the grounds for commutation of sentence of death
into life imprisonment and the said supervening circumstance is applicable to
all types of cases including the offences under TADA. The only aspect
the Courts have to satisfy is that the delay must be unreasonable and
unexplained or inordinate at the hands of the executive. The argument that a
distinction can be drawn between IPC and non-IPC offences since the nature of
the offence is a relevant factor is liable to be rejected at the outset. This
case also held that the ratio laid down in Devender Pal Singh Bhullar vs.
State (NCT) of Delhi[3] is per incuriam.
Final Verdict by the Court in
the Present Case
The court concluded by saying
that since Devender Pal Singh Bhullar vs. State (NCT) of Delhi[4] is per
incuriam and by applying the said principle as enunciated in Shatrughan
Chauhan, death sentence awarded to Devender Pal Singh Bhullar is liable to
be commuted to life imprisonment.
The court also received the
information that the accused Devender Pal Singh Bhullar is suffering from
severe Depression with Psychotic features (Treatment Refractory Depression)
with Hypertension with Dyslipidemia with Lumbo-cervical Spondylosis with Mild
Prostatomegaly.
Thus, mental illness is also one
of the supervening circumstances for commutation of death sentence to life
imprisonment. By applying the principle enunciated in Shatrughan Chauhan,
the court said that the accused cannot be executed with the said health
condition.
Hence, the court commuted the
death sentence into life imprisonment both on the ground of
unexplained/inordinate delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy petition and on
the ground of insanity/mental illness.
To be Continued....
[1] 2014
(1) SCALE 437.
[2] (1980)
2 SCC 684.
[3] (2013)
6 SCC 195.
[4] (2013)
6 SCC 195.
No comments:
Post a Comment