Case Summary: State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade & Anr. (2024) | Death Row Convicts and Article 21

The case reaffirms the balance between upholding the rule of law and ensuring the humane treatment of convicts on death row.

Case Title: State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade & Anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2831 and 2832 of 2023

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih

Decided On: December 9, 2024

Legal Provisions Involved: Articles 21, 32, 72, and 161 of the Constitution of India, Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 364, and 404 read with Section 120-B IPC, Sections 413 and 414 of CrPC

Background

The appeals centred on the effect of delay in executing the death sentence. The respondents, Pradeep Yashwant Kokade (Convict No. 1) and Purushottam Dasrath Borate (Convict No. 2) were convicted for the heinous rape and murder of a woman employee on the night of November 1, 2007. Both convicts were sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, Pune, in 2012. The Sessions Court convicted the respondents under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 364, and 404 of the IPC and sentenced them to death in 2012. The Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court confirmed the sentence in 2015.

After exhausting judicial remedies, the convicts filed mercy petitions before the Governor of Maharashtra and the President of India. However, a substantial delay occurred during the disposal of these petitions and the issuance of the execution warrants, prompting the High Court to commute the death sentence to 35 years of imprisonment. The High Court held that the cumulative delay violated the convicts' right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Delay Timeline:

Mercy petitions to the Governor (July 2015–March 2016): Delayed by 5 months due to administrative inefficiencies.

Mercy petitions to the President (April 2016–May 2017): Significant delays occurred due to bureaucratic communication gaps.

Execution Warrants (June 2017–April 2019): Sessions Court failed to issue warrants promptly despite repeated requests from prison authorities.

Issues

Delay in Execution: Whether the delay in executing the death sentence amounted to violating the respondent's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Inordinate Delay in Mercy Petition Disposal: Whether the delay in processing the mercy petitions by the Governor and the President was avoidable and unreasonable.

Role of the Sessions Court: Whether the Sessions Court failed to act promptly in issuing the execution warrants.

Arguments

For the State of Maharashtra:

• Counsel argued that the delay in processing mercy petitions was neither inordinate nor unreasonable. The time taken was necessary for reviewing voluminous records and obtaining necessary information.
• It was contended that the delay in issuing execution warrants was due to procedural complexities rather than negligence.
• The convicts were not kept in solitary confinement but in a security yard with access to other prisoners and amenities.

For the Respondents:

• Counsel submitted that the cumulative delay of nearly four years in execution was inordinate and caused psychological and physical agony to the convicts, violating their rights under Article 21.
• The delay post-rejection of mercy petitions was attributed to state authorities' negligence, rendering the punishment unconstitutional.
• The respondents were kept in solitary confinement, which amounted to inhumane treatment.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the principles of fair, just, and humane procedure under Article 21.

Legal Principles Established

• Delay in Execution of Death Sentence: The Court reiterated that inordinate and unexplained delay in executing the death sentence amounts to a violation of Article 21. Such delay causes mental agony and has a dehumanizing effect on the convict.
• Judicial vs. Executive Delays: Judicial delays during the appellate or review process cannot be attributed to the State. However, delays caused by executive inaction or procedural inefficiencies are avoidable and unconstitutional.
• Role of the Sessions Court: The Sessions Court plays a vital role in issuing execution warrants. It must act promptly and ensure compliance with procedural safeguards, including notice to the convict and timely issuance of warrants.
• No Fixed Period for Delay: The Court clarified that no fixed timeframe constitutes "inordinate delay." Each case must be assessed based on its specific facts and circumstances.
• Mercy Petitions: The executive must process mercy petitions expeditiously, and States should establish dedicated cells to ensure timely handling of such cases.

Key Observations

• The Court found a cumulative delay of nearly four years post-confirmation of the death sentence, caused primarily by administrative inefficiencies and laxity by the Sessions Court.
• The agony inflicted by prolonged uncertainty violated the convicts' fundamental rights, warranting commutation of the death sentence.
• The Court highlighted the need for systemic reforms to curb delays in handling death penalty cases.

Operative Directions

State Governments:

• Establish dedicated cells in the Home/Prison Departments for expeditious processing of mercy petitions.
• Ensure strict compliance with procedural guidelines for handling mercy petitions and issuing execution warrants.

Sessions Courts:

• Promptly act upon receipt of orders confirming or imposing the death sentence.
• Issue notices to convicts and their advocates before issuing execution warrants.
• Ensure a clear 15-day period between the issuance and execution of warrants, allowing convicts to avail remedies and meet family members.

Guidelines for Mercy Petitions:

• States must process mercy petitions within a reasonable timeframe.
• Ensure comprehensive documentation, including the convict’s antecedents, family condition, and incarceration details, to expedite decision-making.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra, affirming the High Court's decision to commute the death sentences to fixed terms of 35 years. The judgment underscores the constitutional mandate to uphold human dignity and ensure fair treatment, even for death row convicts.

This landmark decision reiterates the need for a balance between the rights of the convict and the interest of justice while addressing systemic delays in the execution process.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment