ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (In short the Constitution) has been filed purportedly in public interest. The prayer in the writ petition is to the effect that the death sentence imposed on one Dhananjay Chatterjee alias Dhana (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") by the Sessions Court, Alipur, West Bengal, affirmed by the Calcutta High Court and this Court, needs to be converted to a life sentence because there has been no execution of the death sentence for a long time. Reliance was placed on Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he saw a news item in a TV channel wherein it was shown that the authorities were unaware about the non-execution of the death sentence and, therefore, condemned prisoner, the accused has suffered a great degree of mental torture and that itself is a ground for conversion of his death sentence to a life sentence on the basis of ratio in Trivenibens case (supra). It needs to be noted here that prayer for conversion of death sentence to life sentence has already been turned down by the Governor of West Bengal and the President of India in February 1994 and June 1994 respectively as stated in the petition. When the matter was placed for admission, we asked the petitioner who appeared in person as to what was his locus standi and how a petition under Article 32 is maintainable on such nature of information by which he claims to have come to know of it. His answer was that as a public spirited citizen of the country, he has a locus to present the petition and when the matter involved life and liberty of a citizen, this Court should not stand on technicalities and should give effect to the ratio in Trivenibens case (supra). There has been violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and the prolonged delay in execution of sentence is violative of Article 21, so far as the accused is concerned.

(3.) Reliance was also placed on few decisions, for example, Sunil Batra (II) vs. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 488; S. P.Gupta vs. Union of India (1981) Suppl. SCC 87), Daya Singh vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 61 and Janata Dal vs. H. S. Choudhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 to substantiate the plea that the petitioner had locus standi to present the petition in public interest and this was a genuine public interest litigation.