COMMUTATION OF
DEATH SENTENCES
~Prachi Kumari [Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi]
Death penalty has constantly
been criticised for being inhuman
punishment. It is contended that
a civilised society does not
require this kind of punishment.
Indian criminal justice system
retains capital punishment or
death penalty for certain serious
offences. At the same time, it
contains
provisions
for
commutation of punishments as
well.
Commutation
simply
means
alteration,
change,
exchange
or
substitution.
Commutation of punishment
means reducing the quantum of
prescribed punishment. Section
54 of the Indian Penal Code 1860
provides for commutation of
sentence of death. It reads as
under:54. Commutation of sentence of
death.- In every case in which
sentence of death shall have been
passed,
[the
appropriate
Government] may, without the
consent of the offender, commute
the punishment for any other
punishment provided by this
Code.
Section 55A defines appropriate
Government. It reads as under:55A. Definition of "appropriate
Government-In sections 54 and
55 the expression "appropriate
Government" means,(a) in cases where the sentence is
a sentence of death or is for an
offence against any law relating
to a matter to which the
executive power of the Union
extends,
the
Central
Government; and
(b) in cases where the sentence
(whether of death or not) is for
an offence against any law
relating to a matter to which the
executive power of the State
extends, the Government of the
State within which the offender
is sentenced.
Our procedural law also has
scope for commutation of
punishment. Section 143(a) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 provides for commutation
of a sentence of death by
appropriate Govt.
Moreover, every death sentence
passed by a sessions (trial) court
must be confirmed by high court
as required by chapter XXVIII of
the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
Even
after
this
confirmation, one can prefer an
appeal for commutation to the
Supreme Court. In case, the SC
also rejects this appeal or
upholds the sentence, the accused
still has an option to file a
‘mercy-petition’
before
the
President of India. Article 72(1)
of the constitution of India
confers on the President the
power to grant pardons, etc. and
to suspend, remit or commute
sentences in certain cases.
Scope for commutation of
punishment does not end at
rejection of mercy petition by the
President. The accused still has
an opportunity to file a writ
petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution for commutation
on the ground of delay in
deciding mercy petition or on
several other grounds laid down
in various case laws. Besides
these, Article- 21 of the
constitution says that no person
can be deprived of his life and
liberty except according to
procedure established by law.
Recently the SC in the case of
Ajay kumar Pal Vs UOI has
commuted the death-sentence to
life-imprisonment.
This
commutation was granted on
the ground of ‘inordinate
delay’. A bench of Dipak Misra,
Rohinton Fali Nariman, Uday
Umesh Lalit JJ. Said that
“Though no time limit can be
fixed within which the mercy
petition ought to be disposed of,
in our considered view the period
of three years and ten months to
deal with such mercy petitions
in the present case comes within
the
expression
‘inordinate
delay’.”
Similarly in the case of
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of
India the SC commuted death
sentence of fifteen death row
convicts due to delay in mercy
plea decisions. The Apex court
also ruled that a death row
convict suffering from mental
insanity
and
schizophrenia
cannot be hanged.
In this way the SC overruled its
own verdict in Devinderpal
Singh Bhullar’s Case in which it
has held that the delay in
deciding mercy plea cannot be a
ground for commutation of
death sentence.
The Shatrugan judgment is
considered a progressive step as
the court observed: “Remember,
retribution has no constitutional
7