Delays in Death Sentence Execution Can Trigger Relief Under Article 32

The Court ruled that undue delay in executing a death sentence allows the condemned person to seek relief under Article 32. The decision in a previous case establishing a two-year rule for commutation was overturned, emphasizing that no fixed period automatically warrants commutation. The Court highlighted the importance of considering the nature of the delay and circumstances post-final verdict in determining the fate of the death sentence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Conflict in judicial decisions regarding delay in execution of the death sentence.
2. Constitutionality and implications of the death penalty.
3. Impact of delay on the mental state of the condemned prisoner.
4. Starting point for computing delay in execution.
5. Rights of condemned prisoners awaiting execution.
6. Consideration of delay caused by the judicial process and executive actions.
7. Relevance of the nature of the crime and subsequent conduct of the prisoner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conflict in Judicial Decisions Regarding Delay in Execution of the Death Sentence:
The case addresses the conflict between two decisions: T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that a delay exceeding two years in the execution of a death sentence entitles the prisoner to commutation to life imprisonment, and Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, which rejected the two-year rule and emphasized that delay alone is not sufficient for commutation. The Court observed, "no absolute or unqualified rule can be laid down that in every case in which there is a long delay in the execution of a death sentence, the sentence must be substituted by the sentence of life imprisonment."

2. Constitutionality and Implications of the Death Penalty:
The constitutionality of the death penalty was upheld in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, where it was observed, "the very fact that persons of reason, learning and light are rationally and deeply divided in their opinion on this issue, is a ground among others, for rejecting the petitioners' argument that retention of the death penalty... is totally devoid of reason and purpose." The judgment emphasizes that the death penalty is awarded in the "rarest of rare cases."

3. Impact of Delay on the Mental State of the Condemned Prisoner:
The Court acknowledged the mental torture and inhuman suffering caused by prolonged delay in execution, stating, "the mental torture it amounts to and it is in this background also that the parties argued at length about the starting point which should be considered for computing delay in execution of the sentence."

4. Starting Point for Computing Delay in Execution:
The Court deliberated on whether the delay should be computed from the trial court's judgment, the High Court's confirmation, or the Supreme Court's final verdict. It concluded, "the delay therefore which could be considered while considering the question of commutation of sentence of death into one of life imprisonment could only be from the date the judgment by the apex court is pronounced i.e. when the judicial process has come to an end."

5. Rights of Condemned Prisoners Awaiting Execution:
The judgment emphasized that condemned prisoners are entitled to humane treatment and should not be subjected to solitary confinement or additional punishment beyond the death sentence. It was observed, "the prisoner who is sentenced to death and is kept in jail custody under a warrant under Section 366(2) he is neither serving rigorous imprisonment nor simple imprisonment."

6. Consideration of Delay Caused by the Judicial Process and Executive Actions:
The Court held that the time taken in judicial proceedings ensures a fair trial and cannot be used to challenge the execution of the death sentence. It was stated, "the time taken in the judicial proceedings by way of trial and appeal was for the benefit of the accused... If the delay in passing the sentence render the execution unconstitutional, the delay subsequent thereof cannot also render it unconstitutional."

7. Relevance of the Nature of the Crime and Subsequent Conduct of the Prisoner:
The Court emphasized that the nature of the crime and the circumstances under which it was committed must be considered when deciding on commutation due to delay. It was observed, "the nature of the offence, the diverse circumstances attendant upon it, its impact upon the contemporary society and the question whether the motivation and pattern of the crime are such as are likely to lead to its repetition, if the death sentence is vacated, are matters which must enter into the verdict."

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that undue long delay in the execution of the death sentence entitles the condemned person to approach the Court under Article 32, but the Court will only examine the nature of the delay and circumstances after the final judicial verdict. The decision in Vatheeswaran's case, which laid down the two-year rule, was overruled to the extent that no fixed period of delay could make the death sentence inexecutable.

---