Mercy Petitions Must Be Decided At The Earliest So That Benefit Does Not Accrue To Convict: Supreme Court

A Division Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar took note of the gravity of the offence and inordinate delay in the disposal of mercy petitions being the reasons for the commutation of sentences. However, observed that, “If even after the final conclusion even upto this Court, even, thereafter there is an inordinate delay in not deciding the mercy petition, the object and purpose of the death sentence would be frustrated. Therefore, as such, all efforts shall be made by the State Government and/or the concerned authorities to see that the mercy petitions are decided and disposed of at the earliest, so that even the accused can also know his fate and even justice is also done to the victim”.

In the matter, Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari appeared for the State of Maharashtra, Advocate Ankita Chaudhary, Amicus Curiae on behalf of the original accused and ASG Aishwarya Bhati, appeared on behalf of the Union of India.

In the present matter, the Bombay High Court through its order and judgment had commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground, that there was an inordinate unexplained delay of about 7 years and 10 months on the part of the State in not deciding the mercy petitions.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati had submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, where 9 persons were killed, the Bombay High Court ought to have commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for natural life without any remission.

The Apex Court relied on its previous judgment in Jagdish vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) 14 SCC 156, where it had commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment considering the 5 years delay in deciding the mercy petition.

The Court directed the State Authorities “…to decide on the mercy petitions at the earliest so that the benefit of delay in not deciding the mercy petitions is not accrued to the accused and the accused are not benefited by such an inordinate delay and the accused may not take the disadvantage of such inordinate delay”.

Cause Title: The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Renuka @ Rinku @ Ratana Kiran Shinde & Ors.