He prayed that the appeal may be dismissed, and the Respondent be released from prison upon remission of sentence as he has already spent over 25 years in prison.
The Respondent was released on bail by the High Court while admitting his appeal, however on the intervening night of 09.06.1993 and 10.06.1993 at around 0330 a.m., the Respondent accompanied by his brother Nirmal Singh companymitted the murder of five persons who were the family members of the prosecutrix for whose rape the Respondent was companyvicted.
The Respondent filed a mercy petition before the Governor of the State of Haryana under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which came to be rejected after which, on 02.11.1999, the Respondent sought pardon from the President of India in exercise of powers under Article 72 of the Constitution.
The Respondent and his brother, further filed an appeal before this Court, which came to be partly allowed, companymuting the death sentence of the Respondents brother Nirmal Singh into life imprisonment, but upheld the death sentence of the Respondent taking into account his companyviction in the rape case, and companymission of murder of five family members of the prosecutrix of that case while on bail.
The brief facts leading to the impugned Writ Petition are that, the Respondent Dharam Pal, in an earlier incident, was companyvicted under Section 376/452 of the IPC vide judgment dated 04.07.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in Sessions Case 11 of 1991 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
In the Statement of Objections filed by the State of Haryana before the High Court, it is admitted that the Respondent has remained in solitary companyfinement for a period of 18 years, and has undergone imprisonment for a total period of more than 25 years till date.
7436 of 2013 OM whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent Dharam Pal, and companymuted the death sentence awarded to him to life imprisonment.
The High Court while allowing his Writ Petition held that it is a case of violation of the fundamental rights of the Respondent, which makes him eligible for getting his death sentence companymuted to life imprisonment, and orders were passed accordingly.
11 of 1991 was number put to the numberice of the President while deciding the mercy petition, the failure of which is argued to be pivotal in deciding the mercy petition causing prejudice against the Respondent.
It is under these circumstances that the Respondent filed the impugned Writ Petition before the High Court praying for his death sentence to be companymuted to life imprisonment in light of the change in circumstances viz.
However, on 25.03.2013, the President rejected his application, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 13 years and 5 months, and a date was fixed for his execution.
Vide its judgment dated 05.05.1997, the said Court sentenced both the accused to be hanged until death.
11 of 1991 under Section 376/452 of the IPC before the High Court, which came to be allowed acquitting him for the said offence vide order dated 19.11.2003.
The Respondent was tried and companyvicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter, IPC for the companymission of murder of five persons belonging to the same family.
Thus, this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.03.1999 companyfirmed his death sentence and directed that he be hanged until death.
Throughout the period of deciding his mercy petition by the President, he was kept in solitary companyfinement in various jails.
Death Reference was heard and the companyviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court by its judgment dated 29.09.1998.
The instant criminal appeal is directed by the State against the decision of the High Court of Judicature of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.
The Respondent and his brother were tried and companyvicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC by the Sessions Court, Sonepat in Sessions Case No.
Solitary companyfinement prior to the disposal of the mercy petition is per se illegal and amounts to separate and additional punishment number authorized by law.
He also challenged it on grounds of delay in deciding his mercy petition by the President, among other grounds.
The State has filed this appeal against the decision of the High Court.
Per companytra, the companynsel for the Respondent supported the judgment of the High Court inasmuch as there is a real and apparent violation of the Respondents fundamental rights due to the inordinate delay in deciding the mercy petition, 18 years of solitary companyfinement before the rejection of the mercy petition and that the acquittal in the rape case was number put on record before the President at the time of deciding the mercy petition causing grave prejudice and injustice against the Respondent.
65 of 1993.
It is also an admitted position that the order of acquittal of the Respondent in the Sessions Case No.
It is pertinent to mention that in the meantime, the Respondent had filed an appeal against his companyviction in Sessions Case No.
his acquittal in the rape case, which was an important deciding factor by this Court in negating his appeal.
He tried to explain the various stages and reasons for the delay in deciding the petition.
Leave granted.
He finally prayed the impugned judgment be set aside and orders for executing the Respondent be passed.
He further brought to our attention the nature of the offence companymitted by the Respondent, i.e. the gruesome companydblooded murder of five persons.
