A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India adjudicated on the effect of an inordinate and unexplained delay in executing the death sentence, leading to the commutation of the death penalty to thirty-five years of imprisonment. The case involved a brutal rape and murder of a young woman by the convicts, whose death sentence had been confirmed by the Supreme Court. However, due to a three-year, eleven-month delay in disposing of the mercy petitions and issuing execution warrants, the Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution had been violated. The Court reaffirmed the principle that a long and unexplained delay in execution has a dehumanizing effect on the accused, which necessitates commutation. Additionally, the Supreme Court issued directions and guidelines to prevent such delays in future cases and to streamline the execution process.

Keywords:

Death penalty, Delay in execution, Mercy petitions, Article 21, Commutation of death sentence.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title
State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade & Anr.

ii) Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 2831 of 2023

iii) Judgment Date
09 December 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih

vi) Author
Justice Abhay S. Oka

vii) Citation
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 574 : 2024 INSC 947

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India: Article 21, 32, 226, 72, 161
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 413, 414
• Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Sections 453, 454

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Human Rights Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This case revolves around the fundamental rights of death row convicts, particularly under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. The central legal issue was whether delays in processing mercy petitions and issuing execution warrants amount to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, violating the right to a dignified execution.

The case originated from a brutal crime committed in 2007, where the two convicts kidnapped, raped, and murdered the victim. The Sessions Court, Bombay High Court, and Supreme Court upheld the death sentence, terming it a “rarest of rare” case. However, the convicts’ mercy petitions remained pending for nearly four years, and the Sessions Court delayed issuing execution warrants, leading to legal challenges based on constitutional and human rights violations.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The deceased was a night-shift employee who was picked up by the company’s cab driver, Purushottam Dasrath Borate (Convict No.2).
2. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade (Convict No.1) was already present in the car, introduced as a “friend.”
3. The next morning, when the victim did not return home, her sister contacted the office, learning that she had never arrived at work.
4. The victim’s body was discovered with multiple fractures, brain injuries, and signs of sexual assault.
5. The convicts were arrested and tried under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 364, 404, and 120-B IPC.
6. The Sessions Court sentenced them to death, which was upheld by the High Court and later by the Supreme Court.
7. The convicts filed mercy petitions before the Governor and the President, which took three years and eleven months to be decided.
8. The Sessions Court further delayed the issuance of execution warrants, contributing to unexplained and avoidable delay.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in executing a death sentence violate Article 21 of the Constitution?
2. Whether the Sessions Court was justified in delaying the issuance of execution warrants despite clear directions?
3. Does keeping a death row convict in uncertainty for an extended period amount to cruel and degrading punishment?
4. What guidelines should be issued to prevent administrative delays in execution?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The delay was not inordinate as the mercy petitions required detailed scrutiny and documentation.
2. The Sessions Court had procedural constraints in issuing execution warrants.
3. The delay was not entirely on the executive’s part but also due to procedural formalities in reviewing mercy petitions.
4. The Court should not interfere as the crime committed was heinous and fell under the “rarest of rare” category.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The delay of nearly four years in execution violates fundamental rights under Article 21.
2. The Sessions Court’s inaction on issuing execution warrants caused additional suffering to the convicts.
3. The Supreme Court has previously commuted death sentences where there was inordinate delay (Shatrughan Chauhan case).
4. The convicts were kept in solitary confinement for extended periods, which violated their right against cruel and inhumane treatment.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Unexplained and inordinate delay in execution violates Article 21.
2. Delays in disposing of mercy petitions cannot be ignored, and the executive must expedite the process.
3. Sessions Courts must not delay issuing execution warrants once all legal remedies are exhausted.
4. Commutation to thirty-five years imprisonment is justified as the delay caused mental and physical agony to the convicts.

b. OBITER DICTA

• The Supreme Court emphasized that mercy petitions should be disposed of within a reasonable timeframe.
• Sessions Courts should establish standard procedures to prevent delays in execution.

c. GUIDELINES ISSUED

1. A dedicated cell in every state’s Home Department for processing mercy petitions promptly.
2. Prison officials to forward mercy petitions within 24 hours of receipt.
3. Sessions Courts to issue execution warrants within a stipulated time after all legal remedies are exhausted.
4. Use of digital communication (emails) to prevent bureaucratic delays.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case reaffirms the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights, even in cases involving heinous crimes. While the convicts’ crime was brutal, the Court held that prolonged and unexplained delay in execution constitutes cruel and degrading punishment. The decision aligns with international human rights jurisprudence and previous precedents where inordinate delay led to commutation of death sentences.

The judgment also introduces institutional reforms to prevent administrative and judicial delays in future cases, ensuring justice is not only done but also seen to be done.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678
2. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1
3. T.V. Vatheesswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1983) 2 SCC 68
4. Ajay Kumar Pal v. Union of India (2015) 2 SCC 478
5. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (2015 SCC OnLine All 143)

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Constitution of India (Articles 21, 32, 226, 72, 161)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 413, 414)
• Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 453, 454)