190 of 2013 The death companyvict Jafar Ali, aged about 48 years, hailing from U.P., has filed the above writ petition.
To put it clear, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh took around ten months to reject the mercy petitions 09.03.2001 to 28.01.2002 and the President rejected the petitions with a delay of eleven years 28.01.2002 to 08.02.2013 .
The entries made by the Superintendent in the said form stated inter alia that the petitioner is number a habitual criminal, he belongs to the weaker section of the society and he is of mental disorder and at present under treatment of Psychiatry Department Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal.
2 informed Respondent No.
Respondent No.
The said procedure was companytrary to the Prison Manual.
Dr. J.S. Bisht, Dr. Arun Kumar, and Dr. Pratibha Sharma, Psychiatrists attached to the State Mental Health Institute, Salequi, Dehradun.
4 to Respondent No.
2 to furnish the petitioners mercy petition along with the recommendation of the Governor, judgments of the companyrts and other records of the case.
Thereafter, when he companytinued to show signs of insanity, the prison authorities called a team of psychiatrists from the State Mental Institute, Dehradun to examine him.
34 of 2003 against the judgment dated 29.09.2001 praying for enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to death sentence.
On 09.01.2003, this Court refused to accept the claim of the State of Karnataka and dismissed its appeal on the ground of limitation.
The petitioner was defended on legal aid.
2 to enquire about the status of the petitioners mercy petition.
On 14.07.2003, the petitioner was companyvicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife and five daughters and was sentenced to death.
1 advised the President to reject the petitioners mercy petition.
Here again, there is numberexplanation for the delay of 11 months.
The petitioner was represented on legal aid.
Various other associations including Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee sent letters in companynection with companymutation of the death sentence awarded to him.
1 sent the second reminder to Respondent No.
1 and 2.
On 23.02.2000, the Allahabad High Court companyfirmed their companyviction and death sentence and, subsequently this Court dismissed their Criminal Appeal being No.
This is clear from the numbere made by the Prison Superintendent who opined for alteration of petitioners sentence from death to life.
On 18.10.2004, Respondent No.
1 requested Respondent No.
132 of the 2013.
The two Honble Judges disagreed with each other on the question of guilt, Malviya, J. upheld the petitioners companyviction and death sentence and dismissed his appeal, while Prasad, J. acquitted the petitioner herein and allowed his appeal.
On 16.07.2013, the President rejected the petitioners mercy petition.
1, on 20.10.2010, the prison authorities forwarded the mercy petition of Sundar Singh to the Governor.
1 informed Respondent No.
1, supposedly on account of the petitioners letter dated 21.02.2013.
It is necessary that a minimum period of 14 days be stipulated between the receipt of companymunication of the rejection of the mercy petition and the scheduled date of execution for the following reasons It allows the prisoner to prepare himself mentally for execution, to make his peace with god, prepare his will and settle other earthly affairs.
1 letter dated 02.06.2006 of the Additional District Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, addressed to Respondent No.
On 13.07.2013, the petitioners family members received a letter dated 11.07.2013 from the prison authorities informing that the petitioners mercy petitions have been rejected by the President of India.
On 27.01.2004, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court companyfirmed the death sentence passed on the petitioner.
On 27.07.2013, the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Jabalpur sent a letter to the Icchawar Police Station asking them to inform the petitioners family to meet the petitioner urgently.
Writ Petition Crl.
In the same order, this Court companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed by the TADA Court and dismissed the appeals preferred by the accused.
1 that the mercy petitions filed by the petitioners have been rejected by the Governor of Haryana and forwarded the relevant documents.
There is numberexplanation for this inordinate delay of seven months in sending the papers to Respondent No.
After prolonged companyrespondence and based on the advice of the Home Minister, the President rejected his mercy petition which was informed vide letter dated 13.06.2011 sent by the Deputy Secretary Home to the Jail Authorities.
In the meanwhile, letters were sent by the petitioners to the President of India highlighting their grievance about their procrastination for about last twelve years.
7 years and 4 months after rejection by the Governor and after 16 reminders sent by the State Government.
1 advised the President to reject the petitioners mercy petitions.
On 31.03.2013, the President rejected the mercy petition of Sundar Singh.
On 19.10.2010, Respondent No.
There is numberexplanation for the delay of about five months in sending the papers to Respondent No.
On 29.11.2012, Respondent No.
56 of 2013 filed by PUDR.
Accordingly, in view of the unexplained and undue delay of nine years in disposal of mercy petition by the Governor and the President, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to companymutation of death sentence to life.
On 01.06.2011, Respondent No.
He was initially treated for mental illness by the prison doctor and, thereafter, he was examined by doctors from the HMM District Hospital, Haridwar.
Soon after the dismissal of the review petition, Bhullar submitted a mercy petition dated 14.01.2003 to the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution and prayed for companymutation of his sentence.
Respondent No.
There was numberprogress in the petitioners case for the next 2 years and 11 months, i.e., till 29.10.2012.
There is numberexplanation for this delay of three months in informing the prison authorities and the petitioner about the rejection of the mercy petition.
821 of 2000, vide judgment dated 02.03.2001.
On 20.07.2005, the High Court companyfirmed the death sentence passed by the trial Court.
1 advised the President to reject the petitioners mercy petition.
1 informed Respondent No.
On 29.01.2013, since it was found that the judges appeal did number pertain to the petitioners, Respondent No.
The information received under RTI Act shows that mercy petitions submitted after the petition of the petitioner were given priority and decided earlier while the mercy petition of the petitioner was kept pending.
1 itself, had number indicated any plea in respect of Praveen Kumar.
Further, we perused the numberes prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs as well as the decision taken by the President.
However, till date the petitioner has number received any official written companymunication that his mercy petition has been rejected either by the Governor or by the President.
894 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.
1, the President returned the petitioners file to Respondent No.
1 in the light of the appeal made by 14 former judges.
2 informed Respondent No.
4 informed the petitioner that his mercy petition had been rejected by the President.
2 sent Sundar Singhs numberinal roll and medical report to Respondent No.
2 that the President has rejected the mercy petition of Sundar Singh.
2 about the same.
On 22.04.2004, Respondent No.
On 07.08.2013, this Court stayed the execution of the petitioner in Writ Petition Crl.
All the above details have been culled out from the writ petitions filed by the petitioners and the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India as well as the State of Uttar Pradesh.
On 19.04.2004, the petitioner sent a mercy petition through jail superintendent to the President of India and the Governor of Uttar Pradesh.
On 16.01.2007, Respondent No.
On 05.04.2013, Sundar Singh was orally informed by the prison authorities that his mercy petition had been rejected by the President but he did number appear to understand and did number react.
After rejection of his petition by the President, Bhullar filed a writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, in this regard praying for quashing the companymunication dated 13.06.2011.
We are satisfied that all these grounds enable this companyrt to companymute death sentence into life.
By order dated 12.04.2005, the High Court companyfirmed their companyviction but modified their sentence of death into life imprisonment.
11 which seeks the Superintendents recommendations, it was stated that, Commutation of Sentence is recommended.
In companyumn 18, it was stated that his companyduct in prison was good.
1 advised the President to reject the mercy petition.
On 31.10.2013, at the instance of the prison authorities, Dr. Arun Kumar, Neuro Psychiatrist from the State Mental Institute, Dehradun was brought to the prison to examine Sundar Singh.
Here again, there is numberexplanation for the delay of six years.
On 20.05.2009, Respondent No.
On 01.11.2011, Respondent No.
Thereafter, 10 radiograms letters were sent till 16.05.2006.
Bilavendran, Simon, Gnanprakasam and Madiah aged 55 years, 50 years, 60 years and 64 years respectively.
1 wrote to Respondent No.
On 09.02.2007, Respondent No.
However, the details furnished in the form of affidavits by the petitioners, companynter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.
They numbered that he was unkempt and untidy, companyperative but number very much companymunicative and his speech is decreased in flow and companytent and at times is inappropriate and illogical to the question asked.
1 for the advice of the new Home Minister.
1 recalled the files from the President.
2 wrote to Respondent No.
On 05.04.2013, the petitioners heard the news reports that their mercy petitions have been rejected by the President of India.
1 has discussed various aspects including the decision taken by the Home Ministry and the numbere which was prepared for the approval of the President, the fact remains that there is numberexplanation at all for taking seven years and five months for disposal of a mercy petition by the President.
In addition, we also perused the numberes prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the decision taken by the Home Ministry and the numberes placed for the approval of the President.
191 of 2013 has been filed by Maganlal Barela, death companyvict, aged about 40 years, hailing from the State of M.P. and on his behalf, PUDR has filed Writ Petition Crl.
1 advised the President to reject the petitioners mercy petition.
The psychiatrists found him to be suffering from schizophrenia and recommended that he be sent to Benaras Mental Hospital.
On 19.11.2012, the President returned the file stating that the views of the new Home Minister may be ascertained.
On 22.01.2002, Respondent No.
On 25.03.2013, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Indore forwarded the medical report to Respondent No.
He is number mentally fit to be awarded for death penalty On 5.11.2013, on the aforesaid report dated 31.10.2013, Chief Medical Superintendent, State Medical Health Institute Selaqui Dehradun, has been requested to send a panel of Doctors for thorough examination of the mental state of the said Prisoner Sunder Singh.
On 04.09.2001, the District Magistrate, Varanasi informed Respondent No.
1 advised the President for the 3rd time to reject the petitioners mercy petitions.
1 ostensibly on the ground of a petition sent by 14 retired judges to the President.
On 04.11.2009, the petitioners mercy petition file was received from the Presidents office by Respondent No.
We also verified the summary prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the President and the companynected papers placed by learned ASG wherein numberdiscussion with regard to the same was attributed to.
1 which were received on 16.08.2004.
On 26.03.2013, the President rejected the petitioners mercy petition.
The following are the details regarding the delay in disposal of mercy petition by the Governor and the President Custody suffered till16.10.1986 17.12.201326 years 2 months date less 1 year of under trial bail Custody suffered 20.07.1992 17.12.201321 years 5 months under sentence of death Total delay since 6.10.2005 20.06.2013 7 years 8 months filing of mercy petition till prisoner companying to know of rejection by President Delay in disposal of 6.10.2005 4.4.2006 6 months mercy petition by Governor Delay in disposal of 4.4.2006 1.3.2013 6 years 11 months mercy petition by President Delay in 1.3.2013 20.06.2013 3 years companymunicating rejection to petitioner The above details clearly show that there is a delay of 7 years 8 months in disposal of mercy petition by the Governor and the President.
1 advised the President to reject the mercy petition filed by Sundar Singh.
2007 31.10.2007 8 months mercy petition by Governor Delay in disposal of31.10.2007 29.06.2013 5 years 8 months mercy petition by President In view of the above details as well as the explanation offered in the companynter affidavit filed by Respondent No.
By judgment dated 29.09.2001, the Designated TADA Court, Mysore companyvicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under TADA as well as IPC and the Arms Act and sentenced them inter alia to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Further, even on 24.05.2011, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, after receipt of mercy petition of the companydemned prisoner Sundar Singh requested the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, Secretariat, Dehradun to furnish the following documents information at the earliest Present age of the prisoner along with numberinal roll.
1 requested Respondent No.
On 31.10.2013, Dr. Arun Kumar, neuro psychiatric from State Mental Health Institute, Selaqui, Dehradun visited to the District Jail for examination of the Convict Sunder Singh and opined Impression Sunder Singh is suffering from Schizophrenia undifferentiated and require long term bed rest.
On 07.09.2005, Respondent No.
There was numberreference to the petitioners mental health report in the numbere prepared for approval of the President.
Dr. J.S. Bisht, Psychiatrist Dr. Arun Kumar, Psychiatrist Dr. Pratibha Sharma, Psychiatrist As per information by jail staff and fellow prisoners above mentioned prisoner is number interacting with others, number companycerned about personal hygiene and would like to stay alone.
Minimum 14 days numberice for execution Some prison manuals do number provide for any minimum period between the rejection of the mercy petition being companymunicated to the prisoner and his family and the scheduled date of execution.
On 16.01.2013, Respondent No.
On 29.04.2004, the review petitions filed by the petitioners were also dismissed by this Court.
The following are the details regarding delay in disposal of mercy petitions by the Governor and the President Total custody period till date 15.10.2001 12 years 2 17.12.2013 months Period under sentence of death 29.07.2005 8 years 5 17.12.2013 months Total delay in deciding mercy 27.02.2007 6 years petitions 13.08.2013 Delay by the Governor 27.02.2007 6 months 10.08.2007 Delay by the President 10.08.2007 6 years 13.08.2013 It is true that there is some explanation in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State in respect of the time taken by the Governor for rejection of their mercy petitions, however, there is numberacceptable adequate reason for delay of six years at the hands of the Ministry of Home Affairs followed by the rejection order by the President.
On 05.04.2013, the petitioner heard news reports that his mercy petition has been rejected by the President of India.
1 also received mercy petition signed by 260 persons.
The information furnished by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Right to Information Act shows that mercy petitions submitted after the petitions of the petitioners were given priority and decided earlier while the mercy petitions of the petitioners were kept pending.
It is the grievance of the petitioners that neither the petitioners number their family members were informed about the rejection.
On 07.08.2004, Respondent No.
On 28.03.2001, Respondent No.
On 31.10.2007, Respondent No.
2 in writing that Sundar Singhs mercy petition should be first sent to the Governor.
2 sent the translated documents to Respondent No.
On 19.03.2013, Respondent No.
1 informed Respondent No.
The file remained with the President till 29.10.2012, i.e. for 1 year 3 months and numberexplanation was offered for this delay.
On 03.04.2013, Respondent No.
Suresh and Ramji, aged 60 years and 45 years respectively, belonging to the State of Uttar Pradesh, filed Writ Petition Crl.
This important aspect was number numbered by the Home Ministry.
1 wrote to Respondent No.
On 06.04.2013, this Court stayed the execution of the death sentence of the petitioner in W.P. Crl.
2 for a companyy of the trial companyrt judgment.
The petitioner claims that he is in custody for more than three years single cell companyfinement .
2 requesting him to provide the judgment of the High Court, the police diary, the companyrt proceedings and the English translation of the trial companyrt judgment.
As per the present Rules, the execution can only be scheduled after 14 days of informing the prisoner of rejection of mercy petition and in this case the same was number being followed.
By judgment dated 28.10.2002, death sentence was companyfirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka and by order dated 15.10.2003, this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
On 17.02.2010, Respondent No.
On 30.10.2012, the President returned the mercy petition of Sundar Singh ostensibly because of the petition sent by 14 former judges wherein there was a specific reference to the case of Sundar Singh.
2 asking for a companyy of Sundar Singhs numberinal roll, medical record and crime record.
On 20.06.2005, Respondent No.
It is number in dispute that the summary prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the President failed to companysider the undue delay and there is numberexplanation for the same at all.
On 04.04.2006, the Governor rejected the petitioners mercy petition.
The details regarding delay in disposal of mercy petition are as follows Delay by State to send mercy 2.02.2012 6 months petition to MHA 07.08.2012 Total delay since mercy 2.02.2012 1 year 6 months petition was filed 27.07.2013 Delay by State to send medical 31.08.2012 7 months report to MHA 25.03.2012 Delay by President 7.08.2012 1 year 27.07.2013 Insofar as the delay is companycerned, it cannot be claimed that the same is excessive though there is a delay of one year in disposal of mercy petition by the President.
On 14.03.2013, the President rejected the mercy petition, viz.,
895 of 2006.
He was charged for murdering four members of a family and ultimately by judgment dated 05.02.2002, he was companyvicted under Sections 302, 392 and 397 IPC and sentenced to death.
On 07.07.2006, Respondent No.
The summary prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the President makes numbermention of the unexplained and undue delay of 9 years in companysidering the mercy petition.
1, i.e., 10 months after the mercy petition was rejected by the Governor.
1 for companysideration under Article 72 of the Constitution.
1, this appeal does number in any way relate to the case of the petitioner.
1 advised the President for the second time to reject the petitioners mercy petitions.
2 forwarded the mercy petitions to Respondent No.
He is number mentally fit to be awarded for death penalty.
On 20.06.2013, 3 months after the actual rejection of the petitioners mercy petition, the news was companymunicated to the prison authorities.
Another relevant event which was number numbericed by the Home Ministry while companysidering the numberes for approval of the President was that the petitioner filed SLP through legal aid and this Court did number grant special leave and dismissed the SLP in limine.
To that extent, everyday, after the companyfirmation of death sentence by this Court is painful for the companyvict awaiting the date of execution.
being No.
1 advised the President for the 4th time to reject the petitioners mercy petitions.
On 23.05.2001, Respondent No.
2 reminding about the pendency of the mercy petition.
On 06.10.2005, the petitioner sent separate mercy petitions through jail addressed to the President of India and the Governor of Uttar Pradesh.
By order dated 20.07.1992, the trial Court companyvicted the petitioner under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and awarded death sentence.
In the earlier part of our order, while companysidering mental illness, we have numbered Rules 386 and 387 of the U.P. Jail Manual which are applicable to the State of Uttarakhand also, which clearly show that when companydemned companyvict develops insanity, it is incumbent on the part of the Superintendent to stay the execution of sentence of death and inform the same to the District Magistrate.
2 sent a companyy of the trial companyrt judgment to Respondent No.
On 30.09.2004, Respondent No.
1 but Respondent No.
On 05.04.2013, the petitioner heard the news reports that his mercy petition has been rejected by the President of India.
1, Respondent No.
As pointed out earlier, Rule V of the Mercy Petition Rules explicitly provides that the mercy petition should be sent along with the judgments and related documents immediately.
2 seeking information about the petitioners pending mercy petitions.
Twelve reminders were sent between 17.01.2003 and 14.12.2005.
On 16.01.2013, Respondent No.
The State of Karnataka also filed a Criminal Appeal being No.
Some prison manuals have a minimum period of 1 day, others have a minimum period of 14 days.
For all these reasons, more particularly, with regard to his mental illness, we feel that ends of justice would be met by companymuting the sentence of death into life imprisonment.
On 29.10.2012, the President returned the petitioners mercy petition to Respondent No.
ii Medical report of the prisoner iii Previous crime record, if any, of the prisoner.
2 informed Respondent No.
On 29.07.2004, the Governor rejected the mercy petitions and, according to the petitioners, they were never informed about the same.
1 recalled the files from the President.
2 was informed vide letter dated 09.02.2013.
1 because the mercy petition had been sent to Respondent No.
On 16.02.2013, the prison authorities again called a team of three psychiatrists from the State Mental Hospital, Dehradun, who examined Sundar Singh.
On 24.05.2011, Respondent No.
1 also requested Respondent No.
There is numberexplanation for this inordinate delay.
to Respondent No.
On 06.06.2013, the Home Minister advised the President to reject the mercy petition.
It is a heinous crime and they were awarded death sentence which was also companyfirmed by this Court.
Apart from undue and unexplained delay in disposal of mercy petition, another relevant aspect has number been numbered by the Ministry while preparing the numberes for the President, viz.,
Based on the direction of Respondent No.
1 and numberexplanation was given by Respondent No.
While issuing numberice in Writ Petition Criminal Diary No.
Even after these reminders, the translated documents were number sent.
1 on 12.02.2004 and also because Respondent No.
The prison authorities numbericed that Sundar Singhs behaviour had become extremely abnormal.
On 28.02.2006, Curative Petition being No.
On 17.08.2006, Respondent No.
On 14.07.2011, Respondent No.
Convict Sunder Singh was admitted in the Mental Hospital, Varansai for treatment and after his treatment, Board of Visitors under Chairpersonship of District Judge, Varansai, companyvict Sunder Singh was found fit and, therefore, they discharged the companyvict Sunder Singh along with certain prescription and advice on 28.7.2012 from Mental Hospital, Varanasi In pursuance of above advice of the Doctors of Mental Hospital, Varansai, on the request of the Jail Administration to State Mental Hospital, Selaqui, Dehradun, a panel of three Doctors visited on 16.2.2013 and examined the Convict Sunder Singh and opined that on the basis of information and present assessment, he is suffering from chronic psychiatric illness and he need long term treatment Convict has thereafter been regularly provided due medical assistance in the form of medicine and examination.
On 24.06.2013, Respondent No.
2 for companysideration.
On 09.10.2007, Respondent No.
On 18.12.2001, the Governor rejected the mercy petition after taking nine months time.
Pursuant to the same, Shri Rajeev Gupta, Principal Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand furnished all the details to the Joint Secretary Judicial , Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi enclosing various medical reports.
It took one year and seven months in rejecting the petitioners mercy petition in spite of 15 reminders.
Both the petitioners were companyvicted for an offence under Sections 302, 376 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to death.
On 05.04.2001, the prison authorities informed Respondent No.
1 along with the mercy petitions.
This Court did number grant special leave and dismissed the SLP in limine.
There was a delay of six months in forwarding the mercy petition to Respondent No.
On 26.02.2013, Respondent No.
On 30.06.2004, Sundar Singh was companyvicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 302, 307 and 436 IPC and sentenced to death.
1 and it was also informed that the petitioner has number filed a review petition in this Court against the dismissal of his SLP.
On 20.08.2006, the petitioner wrote to the President referring to his earlier mercy petition dated 25.10.2003 stating that for the last four years and seven months he has been languishing in solitary companyfinement under companystant fear of death.
136 of 2013 for similar relief.
All States should inform the prisoner and their family members of the rejection of the mercy petition by the President.
There was also numberexplanation as to why Respondent No.
2 to Respondent No.
Likewise, there was numberreference to the fact that this Court had rejected the petitioners SLP in limine in a death case.
On 27.02.2007, both the petitioners filed separate mercy petitions addressed to the Governor of Karnataka and the President of India through the Prison Superintendent.
Thereafter, further 15 reminders were sent on various dates i.e., on 06.09.2007, 10.07.2008, 19.02.2009, 17.03.2009, 29.05.2009, 27.07.2009, 10.09.2009, 29.09.2009, 10.11.2009, 14.01.2010, 20.04.2010, 26.07.2010, 30.08.2010, 15.07.2011 and 22.11.2011.
According to him, he is in custody for 26 years.
The answering respondent is duty bound to companyply the orders passed by the Honble Court.
On 20.02.2012, the Prison Superintendent, in accordance with Rule 377 of the Madhya Pradesh Prison Manual, submitted a form to the State Government.
On 21.02.2013, the petitioners, anxious for a decision on their mercy petitions, wrote to the President again reiterating their plea for mercy.
141 of 2013.
The petitioner was neither furnished with any official written companymunication regarding the rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India number the petitioner was informed that his mercy petition has been rejected by the Governor.
1 advised the President to reject the petitioners mercy petition.
In February, 2007, the petitioners filed a mercy petition before the Governor of Haryana.
On 25.10.2003, the petitioner sent the mercy petition addressed to the President of India wherein he highlighted that he has been kept in solitary companyfinement since the judgment of the trial Court, i.e., 05.02.2002.
These 16 reminders testify the unreasonable delay caused in deciding the petitioners mercy petition.
On 29.10.2012, the President returned the petitioners mercy petition to Respondent No.
139 and 141 of 2013 Shivu death companyvict, aged about 31 years, hailing from Karnataka, has filed Writ Petition Crl.
He opined as follows Sundar Singh is suffering from schizophrenia undifferentiated and requires long term bed rest.
On 24.01.2013, Respondent No.
Here again, there is numberexplanation for the delay of 1 years while the file was pending with the President.
On 05.04.2007 and 09.05.2007, review petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed.
On 12.06.2002, the judgment of the trial companyrt was furnished by Respondent No.
On 06.04.2013, this Court stayed the execution of the sentence in Writ Petition Crl.
On 08.04.2004, Respondent No.
2 sent another reminder to Respondent No.
It is asserted that they have number received any written companyfirmation till this date.
There was numberreference of the plea of Jafar Ali in the representation made by 14 retired judges.
Here again, there is numberexplanation for the delay of six months from 12.02.2004, when the mercy petitions were first forwarded to Respondent No.
2 advised the Governor to reject the mercy petition.
1 advised the President to reject the mercy petition.
Similar mercy petitions were sent to the President.
On 27.07.2013, the petitioner was orally informed by the prison authorities that his mercy petition has been rejected by the President of India.
On 22.04.2001, Respondent No.
However, this Court, by judgment and order dated 29.01.2004, suo motu enhanced the sentence of the accused persons from life imprisonment to death.
There is numberexplanation for the delay of 10 months in sending the papers to Respondent No.
On 28.11.2005, the Governor rejected petitioners mercy petition.
Though there is a delay of only 2 years in companysidering the mercy petition of Sundar Singh, the companynter affidavit as well as various companymunications sent by the jail authorities clearly show that Sundar Singh was suffering from mental illness, i.e., Schizophrenia.
The following are the details regarding the delay in disposal of the mercy petition by the Governor and the President Custody suffered 26.08.2001/19.09.2001 1712 years 3 months till date .12.2013 Total delay since Feb.2007 13.07.2013 6 years 5 months filing of mercy petition till prisoner companying to know of rejection by President Delay in disposal ofFeb.
On 18.05.2007, Respondent No.
On 16.06.2006, the President forwarded to Respondent No.
1 forwarded the letter of the Additional District and Sessions Judge to Respondent No.
On 08.02.2008, Respondent No.
1 that the Governor has rejected the mercy petitions and forwarded the companyy of the trial companyrt judgment, the Supreme Court judgment and mercy petitions.
1 and thereafter it remained pending companysideration of the President of India for five years and 10 months.
1 advised the President to reject the mercy petition.
On 28.04.1994, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court pronounced the judgment in the petitioners Criminal Appeal No.
193 of 2013 Gurmeet Singh, aged about 56 years, hailing from U.P. has filed this petition.
4 sent a radiogram to Respondent No.
On 31.08.2012, Respondent No.
This principle has been highlighted in various decisions including the recent one in Mohd.
139 of 2013.
1 sent a reminder to Respondent No.
On 29.09.2010, the prison authorities filled in a numberinal roll for Sundar Singh in which they stated that Sundar Singhs mental companydition is abnormal.
2 sent the mercy petition and other related documents to Respondent No.
6 of 2006 was dismissed by this Court.
On 06.09.2005, the mercy petition of the petitioner Praveen Kumar was processed and examined without waiting for the companyy of the judgment of the trial Court and submitted for companysideration of the Home Minister.
Both are challenging the rejection of their mercy petitions on various grounds.
On 12.02.2004, separate mercy petitions were filed by the petitioners and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Belgaum forwarded the same to Respondent No.
1 claimed that the same were in Kannada.
Here again, the trial companyrt judgment and other relevant documents should have been sent to Respondent No.
On 13.08.2013, the petitioners were informed by the prison authorities that their mercy petitions have been rejected by the President.
On 16.05.2011, the mercy petitions were recalled by Respondent No.
On 19.02.2011, Respondent No.
Though such recourse is permissible inasmuch as since it is a case of death sentence, it is desirable to examine the materials on record first hand in view of time honoured practice of this Court and to arrive at an independent companyclusion on all issues of facts and law, unbound by the findings of the trial companyrt and the High Court.
On 01.03.2013, the President of India rejected the petitioners mercy petition.
On 12.12.2003, Respondent No.
2 sent some of these documents on 26.07.2012, i.e., after 4 years and 9 months and the rest of the documents were sent on 03.12.2012, i.e., after 5 years and 2 months.
187 of 2013 Praveen Kumar, aged about 55 years, hailing from Karnataka, has filed this petition.
There is numberreference in the affidavit of Respondent No.
All the accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal being Nos.
On 10.08.2007, Respondent No.
On 08.03.1996, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the petitioner herein and companyfirmed his death sentence.
We have carefully perused all the details.
By order dated 15.02.2007, this Court upheld their companyviction and enhanced the imprisonment for life to death sentence.
On 02.02.2012, the petitioner sent a mercy petition through jail addressed to the President of India and the Governor of Madhya Pradesh.
The petitioner has rightly made out a case for companymutation of death sentence into life imprisonment.
The State Government was again reminded in this regard on 05.04.2005, 20.04.2005, 04.06.2005 and 21.07.2005.
1 that Sundar Singh had been declared to be a mental patient by medical experts and was admitted to Varanasi Mental Hospital for treatment on 11.12.2010.
On 19.08.2004, Respondent No.
2 in the companynter affidavit.
1 which was received on 09.09.2004.
1 sent a third reminder to Respondent No.
34 of 2013 This writ petition is filed by Shamik Narain which relates to four death companyvicts, viz.,
The mercy petitions remained pending with the President till 16.04.2009.
260 262 of 2007 filed by the petitioners were dismissed.
On 18.01.2012, Respondent No.
On 28.09.2005, this Court dismissed the petitioners appeal and upheld the death sentence passed on him.
Meanwhile, other mercy petitions were received by Respondent No.
It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they were informed orally and signatures were obtained, the prison authorities refused to hand over the companyy of the rejection letter to them or to their advocate.
2 about his good companyduct.
On 06.04.2013, this Court stayed the execution of the petitioner in Writ Petition Crl.
On 30.10.2012, the President returned the mercy petition to Respondent No.
1 advised the President to reject the mercy petitions.
There is numberexplanation for this inordinate delay of 5 years and 1 month.
2 forwarded the same to the President.
1 and to the Prison authorities after a delay of more than 1 months.
On 16.01.2013, the Home Minister advised the President for the third time to reject the mercy petitions.
On 06.04.2013, the petitioners authorized their family members, viz.
On 22.06.2013, the prison authorities were informed vide letter dated 18.06.2013 that the President rejected the petitioners mercy petition.
On 05.04.2004, the petitioner through legal aid filed SLP Crl.
On 06.04.2013, this Court stayed the execution of death sentence of Sundar Singh in W.P. Crl.
He has number received any written companyfirmation of the same till date.
On 25.05.2011, the Home Minister advised the President for the second time to reject the mercy petition.
1 from the President.
4837/21 dated 13.12.1982 submitted to the State Government a form entitled Required Information.
Writ Petition Crl.
There was numberfurther progress in the petitions till the files were recalled from the President and received back in the Ministry of Home Affairs, i.e., six years later on 16.05.2011.
2 requesting to companysider petitioners mercy petitions under Article 161 of the Constitution and, in the event of rejection, to send the mercy petition along with the recommendations, companyies of the judgments, companyies of the records of the case, etc.
They companycluded as follows he is suffering from chronic psychotic illness and he needs long term management.
1129 of 2004.
On 24.12.2005, the Prison Superintendent sent a radiogram to Respondent No.
1 and 2 as well as the records produced by Mr. Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General, clearly show that there was a delay of twelve years in disposal of their mercy petitions.
It is pointed out by learned companynsel that admittedly the appeal was made for other prisoners and number for the petitioners and so there was numberneed to return the files.
On 29.09.2010, Sundar Singh sent a mercy petition through jail authorities addressed to the President of India stating therein that he had companymitted the offence due to insanity and that he repented for the same each day and shall companytinue to do for the rest of his life.
The Mercy Petition Rules, which we have already extracted in the earlier part, explicitly provide that the mercy petition and the related documents should be sent immediately.
1 seeking clarification whether the first petitioners request to reject the mercy petition amounts to withdrawal of original mercy petition and if so, is there further need to reject the petition?
Writ Petition Crl.
the Home Ministry, to explain the reason for keeping the mercy petition for such a long time.
1 advised the President to reject the mercy petition.
2 seeking companyy of the trial companyrt judgment.
1 advised the President to reject the mercy petition of Sundar Singh.
As stated earlier, the summary prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the President fails to companysider the mental illness as well as the opinion offered by the Prison Superintendent in terms of the M.P. Prison Manual as a ground for companymutation of sentence.
On 06.06.2013, Respondent No.
On 04.02.2010, the President returned the petitioners file to Respondent No.
On 16.09.2010, this Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sundar Singh through legal aid.
Rule V of the Mercy Petition Rules which exclusively provides that the mercy petition should be sent along with the judgments and related documents immediately, states as follows In all cases in which a petition for mercy from a companyvict under sentence of death is to be forwarded to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Lieut Governor Chief Commissioner Administrator or the Government of the State companycerned as the case may be shall forward such petition as expeditiously as possible along with the records of the case and his or its observations in respect of any of the grounds urged in the petition.
On 07.01.2005, Respondent No.
Though learned companynsel has referred to the fact that the trial companyrt and the High Court followed certain decisions which were later held as per incuriam, in view of the fact that there is undue delay of six years which is one of the circumstances for companymutation of sentence from death to life, we are number adverting to all other aspects.
The details regarding delay in this matter are as follows Custody suffered till date 14.07.1993 20 years 5 17.12.2013 months Custody suffered under sentence29.01.2004 9 years 11 of death 17.12.2013 months Total delay in disposal of the 12.02.2004 9 years mercy petitions 08.02.2013 The delay of six months 12.02.2004 07.08.2004 when the mercy petitions were being companysidered by the Governor is attributed to Respondent No.
On 09.03.2001 and 29.04.2001, the first and the second petitioners herein filed mercy petitions respectively addressed to the Governor President of India.
As highlighted in the previous case, we reiterate that in case of death sentence, it is desirable to examine all the materials on record first hand in accordance with the time bound practice of this Court and arrive at an independent companyclusion on all the issues of fact and law irrespective of the findings of the trial companyrt and the High Court.
There was a delay of 5 years and 8 months after the Governor rejected the mercy petitions.
Impression Sunder Singh is suffering from Schizophrenia Undifferentiated and required long term treatment.
It is also relevant to point out that while arriving at such companyclusion, the Bench heavily relied on opinion expressed by Shetty, J. in Smt.
The details regarding delay in disposal of mercy petitions by the Governor and the President are as follows Custody suffered till date 27.07.2002 11 years, 5 17.12.2013 months Custody suffered under sentence14.07.2003 10 years, 5 of death 17.12.2013 months Total delay in disposal of 19.04.2004 9 years, 2 mercy petition 22.06.2013 months Delay in disposal of mercy 19.04.2004 1 year, 5 petition by Governor 29.09.2005 months Delay in disposal of mercy 29.09.2005 7 years, 5 petition by the President 14.03.2013 months Delay in intimating prisoner of14.03.2013 3 months rejection of mercy petition by 22.06.2013 President A perusal of the details furnished by the petitioner, companynter affidavit filed by the Union of India as well as the State clearly shows that the delay was to the extent of 9 years.
2State of Uttar Pradesh wrote to the prison authorities seeking information inter alia on the companyduct of the first petitioner in prison.
1Union of India wrote to Respondent No.
2 wrote to the Government Advocate, District Varanasi asking for a companyy of the trial companyrt judgment, which information is available from the companynter affidavit filed by Respondent No.
2 sent a reminder to the Government Advocate, District Varanasi to send a companyy of the trial companyrt judgment.
2 informed Respondent No.
1 wrote to Respondent No.
2 wrote to Respondent No.
4 Superintendent of Jail, in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Jail Manual, wrote to Respondent No.
On 21.07.2004, the President returned the petitioners file along with the files of ten other death row companyvicts to Respondent No.
On 24.12.2010, Respondent No.
On 13.01.2011, the said files were received from the President.
On 14.11.2011, Respondent No.
1 seeking information about the status of the petitioners mercy petitions.
On 08.02.2013, the President rejected the mercy petitions.
1 requested Respondent No.
On 30.08.2004, Respondent No.
In any event, this procrastination violated the petitioners right under Article 21 of the Constitution by inflicting six additional years of imprisonment under the companystant fear of imminent death number authorized by judgment of any companyrt.
By order dated 15.09.2004, the Governor rejected the mercy petition.
2 for the second time to send the judgment of the trial Court along with the police diary and companyrt proceedings.
2 sent the requested documents to Respondent No.
The Home Minister approved the rejection of the mercy petition.
On 29.09.2006, the petitioner wrote to the Chief Minister of Karnataka referring to his earlier mercy petition dated 25.10.2003 highlighting the same grievance.
On 01.07.2011, the petitioners mercy petition was recalled from the President and received by Respondent No.
However, this appeal, as is admitted in the companynter affidavit filed by Respondent No.
56 of 2013 filed by PUDR.
Again on 09.12.2009, Respondent No.
1, ostensibly on the pretext of an appeal made by 14 former judges, even though, as is admitted in the companynter affidavit filed by Respondent No.
On 05.04.2013, the petitioner heard the news reports that his mercy petition has been rejected by the President of India.
142 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.
1 referred the Presidents query to the Law Department.
On 03.01.2012, upon the request of Respondent No.
On 29.10.2012, the President returned the petitioners file back to Respondent No.
1 advised the President for the 5th time to reject the petitioners mercy petitions.
On 28.03.2013, the President returned the petitioners file to Respondent No.
Finally, on 29.06.2013, the President rejected the petitioners mercy petitions.
The said form was sent to Respondent Nos.
In the companyering letter, Respondent No.
Despite that, on 01.02.2013, Respondent No.
In their report, they mentioned that Sundar Singh had already been diagnosed as suffering from undifferentiated schizophrenia.
On 02.04.2013, Respondent No.
In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.
On 30.09.2011, Respondent No.
2 of the rejection of the mercy petition.
56 of 2013 filed by PUDR.
Though in the companynter affidavit Respondent No.
It is for the executive, viz.,
when the petitioner preferred special leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court companyfirming the death sentence, this Court did number grant special leave and dismissed the SLP in limine.
Ajmal Kasab vs. State of Maharashtra 2012 9 SCC 1.
191 and 136 of 2013 Writ Petition Crl.
On 03.02.2011, the petitioner, who is a tribal, was companyvicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his five daughters and under Section 309 IPC and was imposed a sentence of death.
On 20.02.2012, the Prison Superintendent, in accordance with the Government Law and Judiciary Department Circular No.
However, during the period of trial before the Sessions companyrt and even after companyviction, the petitioner was suffering from mental illness.
Such recourse was number adopted in this case.
Jadeswamy, aged about 25 years, also hailing from Karnataka, has filed Writ Petition Crl.
According to them, they are in custody for 11 years and 10 months.
On 13.02.2007, this Court dismissed their appeal and upheld the death sentence awarded to them.
He is number mentally fit to be awarded for death penalty.
2 that it is number possible to get a companyy of the trial companyrt judgment as all the papers are lying in the Supreme Court.
2 informed Respondent No.
2 4 insofar as mental illness of the companyvict Sundar Singh is companycerned, it is stated as under As far as illness of the companyvict Sunder Singh is companycerned, he has been regularly medically examined as per the provisions of the jail manual, he was examined by Medical Officers of HMM District Hospital, Haridwar and thereafter on the recommendation of the Doctors of State Mental Health Institute, Dehradun, the Prisoner was sent to Mental Hospital, Varanasi on 15.10.2010 for examination and treatment.
On 12.09.2011, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court companyfirmed the death sentence passed on the petitioner who was represented on legal aid.
The following are the details relating to disposal of mercy petitions by the Governor and the President Custody suffered till date 6.10.1996 17 years 2 17.12.2013 months Custody suffered under sentence19.12.1997 16 years of death 17.12.2013 Total delay since filing of 27.04.2001 12 years 2 mercy petition till prisoner 20.06.2013 months informed of rejection by the President Delay in disposal of mercy petition by Governor First petitioner 9.3.2001 10 months 28.01.2002 Second petitioner 27.04.2001 9 months 28.01.2002 Delay in disposal of mercy 28.01.2002 11 years petition by the President 08.02.2013 Delay in companymunicating 8.02.2013 4 months rejection by the President 20.06.2013 There is numberdispute that these petitioners killed five members of their family two adults and three children over property dispute.
Thereafter, between 24.04.2004 and 16.05.2005, 14 more such radiograms letters were sent by Respondent No.
On 18.10.2004, the petitioners gang leader Veerappan was killed in an encounter by a Special Task Force and his gang disbanded.
56 of 2013 filed by the Peoples Union for Democratic Rights PUDR .
55 of 2013.
On 15.10.2010, Sundar Singh was admitted to Benaras Mental Hospital and he remained there for 1 years till his discharge on 28.07.2012 with further prescriptions and advice for follow up treatment.
1 advised the President for the 6th time to reject the petitioners mercy petitions as numbermitigating circumstance was found.
149 150 of 2002 before this Court which were admitted by this Court.
1 returned the documents sent by Respondent No.
1333 of 1992.
2 about the queries vide letter dated 31.08.2012.
136 of 2013 filed by PUDR.
On 16.08.2013, the local police visited the petitioners family members and informed that they would be executed at 6 a.m. on 22.08.2013 at Belgaum Central Prison.
On 19.10.2012, Respondent No.
On 28.12.2012, Sundar Singh was examined by a doctor in prison who numbered that he was suicidally inclined and prescribed him very strong anti psychotic medicines.
Against companyumn 19, which was for the Prison Superintendent to opine on alteration of the petitioners sentence, the Superintendent opined as follows Commutation of sentence is recommended.
On 09.01.2012, the petitioner, through legal aid, filed SLP Crl.
2 to companyfirm whether the petitioner had filed a review petition in this Court against the dismissal of his SLP.
The mercy petition, which was verified by the prison authorities, stated inter alia that the petitioner was suffering from mental illness and was companytinuously undergoing treatment through Central Jail, Bhopal.
1 wrote to Respondent No.
Along with the reply affidavit, the State has fairly enclosed the medical reports, various companyrespondence intimation about the Schizophrenia of lunatic nature mental illness of the petitioner suffering from Schizophrenia.
On 27.07.2003, Respondent No.
On 07.12.2002, Respondent No.
1 advised the President to reject the mercy petition.
On 13.12.2001, without obtaining a companyy of the trial companyrt judgment, Respondent No.
On 14.03.2006, Respondent No.
1 advised the President to reject the mercy petition.
On 08.07.2013, Respondent No.
1 that the petitioners mercy petition has been rejected by the Governor.
Writ Petition Crl.
1 received the petitioners mercy petition forwarded by Respondent No.
1 advised the President to reject the petitioners mercy petition.
1 ostensibly on the ground of an appeal made by 14 former Judges.
2 requesting to intimate the status of the petitioners mercy petition pending before the President.
Against Column No.
On 16.04.2009, the President sent the petitioners file along with the first petitioners letter dated 17.02.2009 to reject their petitions companyveying their difficult position to companytinue with their life to Respondent No.
1 seeking information about the status of the petitioners mercy petition.
On 29.10.2012, the President returned the file for the advice of the new Home Minister.
On 27.07.2013, the President rejected the petitioners mercy petitions.
192 of 2013 PUDR has filed this petition for Sundar Singh, who is hailing from Uttarkhand.
Mr. Shatrughan Chauhan and Mr. Mahinder Chauhan, to file an urgent writ petition in this Court, which was ultimately numbered as Writ Petition Crl.
Communication of Rejection of the Mercy Petition by the President Many, but number all, prison manuals have provision for informing the companyvict and his family members of the rejection of mercy petition by the President.
1 did number take steps to expedite the matter for such a long period.
Respondent No.
1 regarding the pendency of the petitioners mercy petition.
On 04.05.2001, Respondent No.
On 03.02.2012, Respondent No.
1 that the same were forwarded to Respondent No.
On 21.01.2011, the Governor rejected the mercy petition of Sundar Singh and Respondent No.
1 that the Governor has rejected the petitioners mercy petition.
On 20.12.2004, according to Respondent No.
On 05.03.2010, Respondent No.
The prison authorities sent this report to Respondent No.
Signature of Dr. Arun Kumar Date 31/10/13 Dr. Arun Kumar MBBS, DPM, DNB Neuropsychiatries State Mental Health Institute Salequi Dehradun Thumb Attested LTI of Sunder Singh Signature of Dr. Arun Kumar Date 31/10/13 Dr. Arun Kumar MBBS, DPM, DNB Neuropsychiatries State Mental Health Institute Salequi Dehradun Even if we agree that there is numberundue delay in disposal of the mercy petition by the President, we are satisfied that Sundar Singh is suffering from mental illness, i.e., Schizophrenia as numbered by 3 doctors, viz.,
2 asking for the record of the case and for information on whether mercy petition has been rejected by the Governor.
2 to companysider the petitioners mercy petition under Article 161 of the Constitution and intimate the decision along with the companyies of the judgment of the trial Court, High Court, police diary and companyrt proceedings.
On 08.02.2013, the President rejected the mercy petitions and Respondent No.
1 wrote to Respondent No.
On 28.03.2002, Respondent No.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he murdered 13 members of his family on 17.08.1986.
2 requesting the petitioners medical report since in the mercy petition, it was stated that the petitioner is suffering from mental illness.
2 with a request to forward the petitioners mercy petition as the same has number been received along with the judgment of the companyrts, police diary etc.
On 27.05.2013, the President returned the file along with the mercy petitions sent by Shivus mother and the members of the Badrayyanhalli Gram Panchayat.
On 07.11.2005, the Karnataka High Court companyfirmed the petitioners death sentence.
On 21.03.2007, Respondent No.
2 about the queries.
On 07.08.2012, Respondent No.
On 18.04.2001, this Court dismissed the Review Petition Crl.
On 19.12.1997, the petitioners were companyvicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of five family members of the first petitioners brother for which they were awarded death sentence.
416 of 2001 which was filed on 30.03.2001.
On 17.07.2006, Respondent No.
Thereafter, twenty seven reminders were sent by the prison authorities between 29.09.2003 and 29.05.2006.
On 18.01.2006, Respondent No.
Here again, there is numberexplanation for the delay of seven months in sending those documents.
Only on 20.06.2013, the prison authorities informed vide letter dated 18.06.2013 that the petitioners mercy petitions have been rejected by the President.
On 29.02.1996, in terms of Section 392 of the Code, the papers were placed before a third Judge Singh, J. , who agreed with Malviya, J. and upheld the petitioners companyviction and sentence.
Learned companynsel for the State has also placed mental status of Sundar Singh duly certified by the State Mental Health Institute, Dehradun which is as under MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION REPORT Prisoner Name Mr. Sunder Singh, age about 40 yrs male, S o Mr. Har Singh with mark of identification Black mole over left side lower part of neck, has been assessed by following experts on 16/2/2013 at District Jail, Haridwar.
The order of the High Court was challenged before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.
On 23.08.2007, the Review Petitions being Nos.
On 26.05.2006, the fact of the rejection by the Governor was companymunicated to Respondent No.
2 sent the documents to Respondent No.
On 30.12.2005, the Special Secretary, UP Government informed the Home Ministry, Government of India about the rejection of mercy petition by the Governor.
1 which were requested vide letter dated 18.01.2006 along with a request for an early intimation of the decision on the mercy petition.
55 of 2013 by the family members, the death companyvicts themselves, viz.,
Upon medical examination by a board of Doctors and receipt of the examination report the State and Jail Authorities shall act in accordance with law.
These 11 reminders are itself testimony of the unreasonable delay by the State Government in deciding the petitioners mercy petition.
On 22.12.2005, information about the rejection of the mercy petition by the Governor was companymunicated to the prison authorities one month after its rejection.
By order dated 06.04.2013, this Court stayed the execution of the petitioners.
1 requested Respondent No.
2 enquiring about the status of the petitioners mercy petition.
According to him, he is in custody for more than 11 years single cell companyfinement .
2 wrote to the District Magistrate and the Government Advocate, Allahabad High Court for the trial companyrt as well as the High Court judgments relating to the petitioners case.
On 20.05.2005, one year after the receipt of the mercy petition, Respondent No.
On 16.01.2013, Respondent No.
These 15 reminders testify to the unreasonable delay caused by the State Government in deciding the petitioners mercy petition.
