Death sentence parity and mercy reconsideration: identical co-accused treatment justified keeping execution in abeyance.

Where co-accused are identically placed on the same facts and one has already obtained commutation, the Court may intervene to prevent manifest injustice from unequal treatment. The Court held that in constitutional jurisdiction, and in light of the prior rejection of the mercy petition, it was appropriate to keep the death sentence in abeyance rather than permit immediate execution. Relief was granted against execution, with a recommendation that the matter be reconsidered for commutation under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.

---

---

Issues: Whether the death sentence could be interfered with in an extraordinary writ proceeding where a co-accused in the same occurrence had already obtained commutation to life imprisonment, and whether the sentence should be kept in abeyance and the matter referred for further executive consideration.

Analysis: The petitioner and the co-accused had been sentenced on the basis of a common judgment and the record showed no material distinction between their participation and culpability. One co-accused had already secured commutation to life imprisonment, while the petitioner faced execution. The Court treated this disparity as a circumstance that could not be ignored consistently with fair and even-handed administration of justice. In the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, and having regard to the prior rejection of the mercy petition, the Court considered it more proper to preserve constitutional comity by recommending further exercise of the President's power rather than directly substituting the sentence itself. The concurrence emphasised that manifest injustice should not be allowed to result from an identical case being dealt with differently.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to relief against immediate execution, and the death sentence was kept in abeyance with a recommendation that the matter be considered for commutation under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The judgment granted protective relief against execution and directed further consideration at the executive constitutional level, so as to avoid unequal treatment between similarly placed co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Where co-accused are identically placed on facts and one has already obtained commutation, the Court may intervene to prevent manifest injustice by keeping the sentence in abeyance and facilitating reconsideration of mercy under the Constitution.

---