10 Convicts, Including 6 On Death Row, Move Supreme Court Against Jharkhand HC's Delay In Pronouncing Judgments On Appeals

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea filed by 10 convicts alleging that judgments on their criminal appeals, though reserved, have not been pronounced by the Jharkhand High Court despite lapse of 2-3 years.Notably, the convicts are facing death sentence or rigorous imprisonment for life. Six out of 10 were sentenced to death and their appeals are pending before the High Court since 2018-19. One convict has been in jail for over 16 years, while the others have also undergone actual custody period of 6 to 16+ years.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Advocate Fauzia Shakil (for petitioners). The bench also issued notice on the convicts' applications for suspension of sentence.Interestingly, the bench noted that in all the 10 reserved cases, the Presiding Judge of the High Court was the same.As per averments made in the petition, 9 out of 10 convicts are lodged in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi. The 10th was lodged in Central Jail, Dumka, but he was released in May this year after his application for bail during pendency of appeal was allowed by the High Court.The convicts had filed criminal appeals challenging their convictions before the High Court of Jharkhand in Ranchi. The judgments were reserved in 2022-23, but even till date, the High Court has not pronounced the decisions.The petitioners aver that the non-pronouncement of the judgments violates their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, a facet of which is the 'right to speedy trial'. Based on judicial precedents, they also highlight the mental agony caused to a convict due to delay in execution of a death sentence.Citing HPA International v. Bhagwandas Fateh Chand Daswani, they point out that the Supreme Court has lamented the practice of constitutional courts reserving judgments for long durations.The petition further states that the Jharkhand High Court Rules (2001) provide for disposal of reserved judgments within 6 weeks of conclusion of arguments.Insofar as 5 convicts challenge their conviction under Section 376 IPC, Section 376(4) of CrPC (inserted in 2018) is also pressed into service, according to which any appeal filed against a sentence imposed under Section 376 IPC must be disposed of within 6 months of filing.With regard to the prayer for suspension of sentence, reference is made to Saudan Singh v. State of U.P. and In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, where it was observed that if a convict has undergone 8 years of actual sentence, then bail would be the rule in most cases.The plea also mentions that the petitioners made representations before various authorities, including the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court, and legal aid bodies, as well as gave letters to officials who routinely visited the jail. But, their efforts went unanswered.It may be recalled that earlier, the Supreme Court issued notice in a similar matter, pursued by 4 convicts. Taking serious note, a bench led by Justice Kant called on the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court in April to submit a status report regarding the reserved judgments in a sealed cover. The scope of the report sought was later expanded to all High Courts and included even civil cases.The Jharkhand High Court subsequently delivered the judgements in the cases of the 4 convicts, 3 of whom were acquitted and the 4th released on bail while his case was referred to a larger bench.Notably, in today's hearing, Advocate Shakil pointed out that the status report filed by the Jharkhand High Court contained details of only 2 out of 10 cases mentioned in the present petition.Case Title: AMIT KUMAR DAS AND ORS. Versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR., W.P.(Crl.) No. 252/2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

10 Convicts, Including 6 On Death Row, Move Supreme Court Against Jharkhand HC's Delay In Pronouncing Judgments On Appeals

Debby Jain

The Court noted that one and the same judge presided over the Division Bench that reserved judgments in the 10 cases.

Tags