GURUSAMY NAICKER Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON PALAYAMKOTTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition praying this Court to commute the sentence of death into one of imprisonment for life. The case of the petitioner as put forth in the affidavit sworn to by a Member of the Tamil Nadu Bar on behalf of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner was convicted for an offence of murder and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in S.C. No. 87 of 1976 on 8.2.1977. A Division Bench of this Court confirmed the sentence by judgment dated 15.6.1977.The leave to appeal was dismissed by this Court on 28.10.1977 and the special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 11.9.1978. The mercy petition addressed by the petitioner on 20.10.1978 was first rejected by the Governor of Tamil Nadu and then by the President of India on 22.8.1981. The execution was fixed to take place on 15.9.1981. 38 Members of Parliament presented a memorandum to the President of India praying for commutation of the sentence of death. On 8.9.1981 a telex message was received from the Government of India staying the execution of the petitioner until further orders. Finally, the request of the Members of parliament was not acceded to and order were passed on 6.6.1984 vacating the stay. The execution was fixed to take place again on 21.6.1984. The petitioner then filed a petition to stay the execution and that petition was allowed by this Court. The prayer of the petitioner in this writs petition is that since he has experienced living death for years, and after all the agony and torment to which he, has been subjected to it is just and fair that the sentence of death be commuted. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the conduct of the prisoner during his period in jail as suggestive of his realisation of the right way of, living and a change in himself raising hope of his future good conduct and full rehabilitation, justifying commutation of the death sentence.

(2.) THE case of the first respondent is that the delay, if any, was first occasioned by the time necessary for processing the trial and subsequent appeals, petition, mercy petition, etc., provided in law and secondly by the dilatory tactics resorted to by the petitioner in approaching the President again, when his mercy petition proved in law was rejected. It was also urged that the circumstances and the way in which the offence of murder was committed does not justify the commutation prayed for.

(3.) IN the first decision the case T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1983) M.L.J. (Crl.) 466: (1983)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 39: (1983) 1. S.C.J. 289: (1983) 2 S.C. 68 (1983) S.C.C. (Crl.)342: (1983) Crl.L.J. 481: A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 361(2), the petitioner therein was the principal accused in the case, he was the brain behind a cruel conspiracy to impersonate Customs Officer, pretend to question unsuspecting, visitors to the City of Madras about them on the pretext of interrogating them administer sleeping pills to the unsuspecting victims, steal their cash and jewels and finally murder them, IN the above case, after reviewing the judicial attitude towards delay in the execution and the constitutional implications of the execution and the constitutional implications of the dehumanising factor of prolonged delay in the execution the Court held as follows: