MANOHARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faced a prosecution in S.C.No.44 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 376 (2)(f) and (g), 302 r/w 34, 364 A, 120 B and 201 I.P.C before the Mahila Court, Coimbatore, in which, on 01.11.2012, he was sentenced to death. On reference, the High Court confirmed the death sentence on 24.03.2014. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 01.08.2019. The Supreme Court also dismissed the Review Petition of the petitioner on 07.11.2019. Thereafter, on 12.11.2019, a relative of the petitioner gave a representation to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore, stating that the petitioner is going to file a mercy petition before the Hon'ble Governor, under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. However, on 18.11.2019, the trial Court issued a warrant under Form 42 and Sections 413 and 414 Cr.P.C to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore and fixed the date of execution as 02.12.2019.

(2.) The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 21.11.2019 challenging the warrant by contending that the death sentence is being executed hurriedly and that he should be given the opportunity to appeal for mercy to the constitutional authorities. This Court, on 26.11.2019, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and ordered that the death warrant dated 18.11.2019 shall be kept in abeyance until further orders. However, in paragraph 5 of the order dated 26.11.2019, this Court has stated as follows:

(3.) After 26.11.2019, this case did not see the light of the day and came up for final disposal on 01.03.2021. Mr.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. R. Poongkhulali, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, placed strong reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Shabnam V. Union of India , 2015 6 SCC 702 and contended that the trial Court ought not to have issued the warrant in Form 42 hurriedly and should have given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file a clemency petition. The relevant portion from the said judgment is as under: