Bhuvana Marni
Published on: November 06, 2022 at 18:33 IST
A man who had been sentenced to death for rape and murder had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court on Friday because he had spent 11 years in solitary confinement while awaiting his judgment.
The petitioner was entitled to commutation since the ill effects of being alone in a cell for an extended period were demonstrated, according to a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha.
“Having considered the entirety of the matter, in our view, the impact of solitary confinement was obviously evident in the instant case, as would be clear from the letter given by the medical professional on 6.11.2011 and the communication emanating from the jail on 8.11.2011.”
“The incarceration in solitary confinement thus did show ill effects on the well-being of the appellant. In the backdrop of these features of the matter, in our view, the appellant is entitled to have the death sentence imposed upon him to be commuted to a death sentence to life,” the judgment stated.
The top court had reserved its verdict in the matter on April 26 this year.
One Umesh, the appellant, in this case, was a convicted lodged at the Belgaum Central Prison in Karnataka. For rape, murder, and robbery, he received a death sentence in 2006.
The Supreme Court upheld his conviction in 2011 after many rounds of appeals, and a three-judge panel denied his review plea in 2016. The President rejected his petition for mercy in 2013.
The Karnataka High Court lifted the stay on his execution last year after finding that the Central and State governments had not taken an excessively long time to consider his request for compassion.
Additionally, it had concluded that the appellant “cannot be said to have been kept in solitary confinement.”
His submissions came in two folds:
- One, that his mercy petition was handled with an avoidable delay of 550 days;
- The second was that he spent 11 years in solitary confinement.
In response to the first argument, the central government’s legal counsel said that the President and Governor had reviewed the appellant’s medical data before choosing whether to grant his clemency plea.
It was argued that there is no set methodology for determining when the government is inordinately delaying making decisions on mercy petitions.
The bench stated that court delays had never been used as a justification for delaying the decision on mercy pleas.
In this case, the Court noted that over two years and three months, the Governor and the President decided on his mercy requests at two different levels.
According to the Court, such a length of time cannot be deemed “an inordinate delay.”
The Court also pointed out that his sentence had been suspended throughout that time.
“The time taken by each of these authorities and the functionaries assisting them cannot be called or termed as “inordinate delay” and secondly, it was not as if every passing day was adding to the agony of appellant. The order of stay of execution had put the matter in a different perspective,” the bench said.
Hence, the first submission did not merit acceptance, the Court made it clear.
The supreme court directed the Belgaum District Judge to investigate the jail premises, particularly the barracks where Umesh was confined, in April in response to the second plea about solitary confinement.
The bench was interested in learning more about the living conditions of the death row prisoners held there.
The appellant’s placement in solitary confinement was later verified after his conviction was confirmed.
Because of this, his request for commuting of the sentence was granted, and he was given a life term in prison.
The Court further declared that sentence remission would not be permitted for 30 years.
“ If any application for remission is moved on his behalf, the same shall be considered on its own merits only after he has undergone actual sentence of 30 years.”
“If no remission is granted, it goes without saying that as laid down by this Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra, the sentence of imprisonment for life shall mean till the remainder of his life. 28. The appeal is allowed accordingly,” the Court ordered.
Case Title: BA Umesh vs. Union of India & Ors.