'Can't Set Outer Time Limit For Exercise Of Executive Power Of Pardon': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Commute Death Sentence

The Karnataka High Court in September dismissed a petition filed by serial killer BA Umesh alias Umesh Reddy, challenging the executability of his death sentence, pursuant to rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India after alleged delay of over two years."There is no standard benchmark on the appropriate length of delay which entitles a convict to seek reduction of penalty from death sentence to life imprisonment. It is not possible for the Courts to set an outer time limit for quick exercise of executive power of pardon when the Constitution itself does not place any such limits," said a division bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur.Reddy was sentenced to death by a Sessions Court in Bengaluru upon being convicted in the year 2006 for offences under sections 376, 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, committed in the year 1998. Dr.Yug Mohit Chaudhary along with Advocate B N Jagadeesha appearing for the convict challenged the executability of the death sentence on four grounds: (i) Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; (2) Delay in adjudicating the mercy petition; (3) Petitioner being put in solitary confinement and (4) Scope of judicial review.BackgroundOn 26.10.2006, the Sessions Judge (VII Fast Track Court, Bengaluru) convicted the petitioner. On 27.10.2006, the Sessions Court passed a sentence of death against the petitioner. On 04.10.2007, the High court confirmed the conviction order, On 01.02.2011, the Apex Court of India dismissed the petitioner's Criminal Appeal and upheld the sentence of death penalty. On 08.02.2011, the petitioner's mother filed a mercy petition before the President of India, which came to be ultimately rejected on 12.05.2013. Parallelly, on 01.03.2011, petitioner filed a review against the judgment passed by the apex court. The same came to be dismissed on 03.10.2016. Following which the accused approached the high court on 03.10.2016 with a prayer for commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment.Arguments"Due to the inordinate delay by now the petitioner is a vegetable than a person and hanging vegetable is not a death penalty. As between funeral fire and mental worry it is the latter which is more devastating for the funeral fire burns only the dead body and mental worry burns the living ones. As per the Golden Rule Standard, the mercy petitions ought to be decided within a period of 90 days," it was argued.It was also stated that no part of the delay can be attributed to the petitioner, as the entire responsibility for the delay is on part of the respondent - Government. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner has been kept in solitary confinement, contrary to Section 73 of the IPC, since the imposition of the death sentence by Sessions Court on 27.10.2006, which is against the expressed dicta of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and in the case of Shatrughan Chauhan And Others v. Union Of India. The counsel also contended that the executive authorities have failed to consider the petitioner's mental condition, wherein even according to the Doctor of the State Government the petitioner has been diagnosed with depression and psychosis and that he has been undergoing medical treatment. Union of India Opposed the plea Additional Solicitor General M.B.Nargund contended that the mercy petition was disposed of within five months by the President.He submitted that the mercy petition was first forwarded to the State of Karnataka for the consideration by its Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The same was done after the review petition was dismissed the Governor rejected the mercy petition by order dated 06.06.2012. The said order was forwarded to the President of India, who by order dated 12.05.2013, rejected the mercy petition.Nargund submitted, "Hence, the question of inordinate delay of more than two years, three months and seven days i.e. 827 days as contended by the petitioner is a fallacy and would not hold any water." ASG further informed the court that though the convict was initially diagnosed with depression and psychosis, on receiving treatment he was found to be fit. The State government counsel also submitted that the petitioner was not kept in solitary confinement but was housed in a high security cell. He placed on record details of the petitioner having used the library, canteen and details of visitors meeting him in prison. Findings At the outset, the Court made it clear that in Indian jurisprudence, examination of 'excessive delay' claims is relatively less liberal than the position of law as it obtains in Europe and the Common Wealth. Relying on the case of Triveniben v. St. Of Gujarat, the Court said,"The Courts in India are constrained to limit the delay computation to delays occasioned on account of faults attributable to the State only. It excludes the 'systemic delays' in prosecution...

'Can't Set Outer Time Limit For Exercise Of Executive Power Of Pardon': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Commute Death Sentence

Mustafa Plumber

Tags