Delay in execution of judgment can’t work in accused’s favour: HC
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that delay in execution of judgments cannot work in favour of accused-convicts in cases of heinous crimes.SHARE ARTICLE
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that delay in execution of judgments cannot work in favour of accused-convicts in cases of heinous crimes. The ruling came as the High Court upheld death sentence awarded to killers of Abhi Verma.
“Even if there is some delay in executing the judgments and orders of the competent courts in such cases that must not negate the consequences of the trial reached after recording the findings and after weighing the material on record, including the gravity of the crime and the consequences to follow in a vibrant justice delivery system,” Justice Jitendra Chauhan asserted.
The Bench made it clear that the courts were under obligation to protect not only the rights of the petitioner-convicts, but also under bounden duty to protect the rights of all, particularly the victim. If the court maintained silence, no forum was left for the victim to voice his grievance. “It will facilitate the perpetrator of the crime to chart out a route that defeated the purpose of trial. Such a course surely will culminate into defeat of the majesty of law,” Justice Chauhan said.
The ruling came on a petition by Jasbir Singh and another convict. Awarded death sentence in murder and kidnapping case registered on February 14, 2005, they were seeking commutation of death sentence to life term. It was contended that the petitioners deserved benefit of commutation on three grounds — delay in disposal of mercy petitions, solitary confinement, and long period of incarceration.
Abhi Verma, 16, was kidnapped on February 14, 2005. His father received a ransom call from the kidnapper demanding Rs 5 lakh. The next day, Abhi’s body was found lying in the fields. Three accused were later arrested in this case. Justice Chauhan asserted it was the discretion or choice of the death row convict to file a mercy petition. It was manifestly established that there was no delay, much less inordinate delay, in deciding the mercy petitions.
He asserted there was no enmity between the petitioners and victim’s family and the murder was committed only to extract ransom. It could be said the petitioners were in statutory segregation and not solitary confinement. “It is informed that the cells were in two rows opposite to each other and the inmates could see and talk to each other. Thus, it can be concluded that the petitioners were never kept in solitary confinement.”
