TC - 13

31st ALL-INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PURVA

PRADESH

WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER

WP No. **** of 2013

HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANISATION

(PETITIONER)
v.

STATE
(RESPONDENT)

FOR EXERCISING WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER

ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF INDICA

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PURVA PRADESH,

INDICA
 P a g e | ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION........................................................................................................ iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................... vi

STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................... vii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ......................................................................................................... ix

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................. x

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ....................................................................................................... 1

1. THE WRIT IS A PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION AND IS MAINTAINABLE. ...... 1

2. IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY WAS DONE IMPROPERLY AND

VIOLATES LEGAL PRINCIPLES. ....................................................................................... 2

2.1. The conviction of Mr X was done without proper appropriation of evidence. ............ 2

2.2. The president did not use power of pardon judiciously................................................ 2

2.3. The imposition of death penalty in the present case would violate legal principles. ... 3

3. EXECUTION OF THE CONVICT AT PRESENT STAGE WOULD VIOLATE

CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE. ......................................................................................... 3

PRAYER ..................................................................................................................................... xvi

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 P a g e | iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

& And
§ Section
¶ Paragraph
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
Cri.LJ Criminal Law Journal
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
Ed. Edition
Hon’ble Honourable
ICCPR The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Ors. Others
p. Page number
PIL Public Interest Litigation
PW Prosecution Witness
S. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rights
UP Uttar Pradesh
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
www. World Wide Web

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 P a g e | iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Bishnu Dev Shaw v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 SC 702. ..................................................... 3
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India and Others, 1951 AIR 41. ................................... 1
D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik & Ors v. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 1974 AIR 2092. .............. 3
Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1384. ..................................................................... 3
Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan v. Attorney General of Jamaica, 4 All E.R. 769 (Privy Council, 1993).
..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 799. .................................................... 3
Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1984) Cr. L.J. 1423. ................................................................ 3
James Shewan and Sons v. U.S., 267 US 86 (1925). ...................................................................... 2
Kuljeet Singh v. Lt. Governor, (1982) 1 SCC 417. ........................................................................ 2
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597................................................................ 3, 4
Noel Riley v. A.G. of Jamaica, (1982) 3 WLR 557........................................................................ 4
People's Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others, (1982) 3 SCC 235. 1
Peoples’ Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union of India & Ors, Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) No 57810 of 2014 (Allahabad High Court, 28/01/2015)............................................... 1, 5
S.P. Gupta v. President of India & Others, AIR 1982 SC 149. ...................................................... 1
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1. .......................................................... 1, 5
Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 344. ......................................................................... 4
State Of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Sangzgiri, 1966 AIR 424. ..................................... 3
State Of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors, (2010) 3 SCC 402. .................................. 1
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980 AIR 1579. ................................................................... 3
T. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1983 Cr LJ 481. ................................................... 3, 4
Triveni Ben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 142. ....................................................................... 4
Ummilal v. State of M.P., AIR 1981 SC 1710. .............................................................................. 3
V Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 242. .................................................. 5

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 Page |v

BOOKS AND DIGESTS

 Aiyer P.R., Advanced Law Lexicon, (3rd ed., 2005).

 Basu, Indian Penal Code, (10th ed., 2007).
 Ben Emmerson, Human Rights and Criminal Justice, (3rd Ed. 2012).
 Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, (8th ed. 2007).
 Durga Das Basu, Case Book on Indian Constitutional Law, (2nd ed., 2007).
 Garner B.A., Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed., 2009).
 H. M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, (4th ed., 2007).
 Jagdish Swarup, Constitution of India, (2nd Ed., 2008)
 V N Shukla, Constitution of India, (11th Ed., 2013).

STATUTES AND INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 The Constitution of India.
 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

WEBSITES REFERRED
 www.ejil.org (last seen on 22/01/2016).
 www.unodc.org/ (last seen on 23/01/2016).
 www.judis.nic.in (last seen on 23/01/2016).
 www.scconline.com (last seen on 24/01/2016).
 www.deathpenaltyinfo.org (last seen on 26/01/2016).
 www.lexisnexis.com (last seen on 26/01/2016).
 www.manupatra.com (last seen on 26/01/2016).
 www.indiankanoon.org (last seen on 27/01/2016).

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 P a g e | vi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Article 2261 of the Constitution
of Indica.

The present memorial submits sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments on behalf of the
petitioner.

1
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part
III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause
of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government
or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is
made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order;
and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such
order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel
of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it
is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the
High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High
Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as
the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 P a g e | vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:

Mr X is a resident of the state of Purva Pradesh in Indica. In the year 1981 Mr X murdered his
wife in a drunken rage at his house. He was tried by the competent Sessions Court, convicted of
offences punishable under S.302, IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment in 1984 and sent to the
central prison in Purva Pradesh, Charapanna Agrahara, to serve out his sentence. There, he became
close friends with his cellmate, Mr Y and agreed to marry his daughter.

II

In 1987, X and Y obtained parole and the marriage between X and Y’s daughter was solemnised
as per the rights and customs of their religion. For around 30 days in a year, X would obtain parole
and visit his wife in her village. In due course of time, X’s wife delivered twin baby boys. However,
by the 1990, X had started suspecting the fidelity of his wife.

III

In October, 1990, X obtained parole and visited his wife and two children. One night while he was
with his family, and being extremely intoxicated with liquor, X was seized by rage and started
quarrelling with his wife over his suspicions on her character and fidelity. Ultimately, he seized an
agricultural implement and hacked his wife to death. He then proceeded to kill his two children
who were sleeping within the house with the same weapon. According to the neighbours who
rushed in, X was trying to commit suicide by hanging himself when they discovered him. He was
handed over to the police, who accused him of having committed the murders of his wife and
children. He confessed in police custody that he had committed the murders.

IV

When X was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate, he refused to make any statement. He
was remanded to custody while the investigation went on. Ultimately, he was charged with
offences punishable under Section 302 and 303 of the IPC. He was represented by a government

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 P a g e | viii

appointed lawyer before the Court of Sessions where his trial commenced, where defence lawyer
did not cross examine witnesses. X was convicted under S.302 and 303 of the IPC to death in 1994.
Upon the matter being sent to the High Court of Purva Pradesh for confirmation of sentence, a
Division Bench split on the quantum of sentence to be awarded. The matter was referred to a third
judge of the High Court who felt that there was no discretion in the matter given the provisions
applied and the nature of the crime and confirmed the sentence of death.

Mr X’s Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of Indica was refused admission on grounds
that it did not raise any issues of significant legal importance. His mercy petition to the President
of Indica came to be rejected in the year 1996. Therefore, Mr X was due to be executed. Due to
oversight on behalf of the prison authorities, Mr X was not kept in the death row cells at the prison,
but was allowed to remain in the cells with other ordinary criminals. In 2011 the same was
discovered and the prisoner was sent to death row confinement. On 01.01.2013, the black warrant
for the execution of Mr X was issued by the appropriate court.

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 P a g e | ix

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

THE PETITIONER WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT THE DEATH PENALTY
SHOULD BE COMMUTED TO A LESSER SENTENCE. THIS HAS BEEN PLEADED BY
RAISING THREE MAJOR ISSUES FOR THE HON’BLE COURT’S CONSIDERATION:

1. THE WRIT IS A PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION AND IS MAINTAINABLE.

2. IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY WAS DONE IMPROPERLY AND
VIOLATES LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
3. EXECUTION OF THE CONVICT AT PRESENT STAGE WOULD VIOLATE
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE.

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 Page |x

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE WRIT IS A PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION AND IS MAINTAINABLE.

The present writ is in the nature of public interest and hence is maintainable. PIL means a legal
action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of interest by which the legal rights of public
or a class of community are affected. Where a legal wrong is caused to a person by reason of
violation of any constitutional right and such person is unable to approach the Court for relief, any
member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ, in the
High Court under Article 226. Bearing in mind the social situation of Mr X, it is needed in the
interest of justice that the rules of locus standi be diluted and the present petition be heard.

2. IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY WAS DONE IMPROPERLY AND

VIOLATES LEGAL PRINCIPLES.

Mr X’s lawyer did not cross examine prosecution or produce any evidence. The president also did
not use power of pardon judiciously. The petition was disposed of hastily and there is no mention
of consultation with the Council of Ministers. Infidelity of wife or sentence of death hanging over
the head of the accused for a considerable long period of time due to law's delay, have been
accepted as extenuating circumstances justifying lesser penalty of life imprisonment instead of
death sentence. In the present case, there has been inordinate delay in the execution of death
penalty, and alleged crime has its genesis on doubts regarding fidelity of the convict’s wife.

3. EXECUTION OF THE CONVICT AT PRESENT STAGE WOULD VIOLATE

CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE.

The Constitution guarantees right to life and personal liberty to all which includes right to live
with human dignity. Prolonged delay in execution of death sentence due to external factors is
inhuman and degrading. It has a dehumanizing effect and has the constitutional implication of
depriving a person of his life in an unjust, unfair and unreasonable way so as to offend the
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Where there is a prolonged delay in the
execution of the sentence of death beyond the control of the prisoner, it would mandate the
commutation of the sentence.

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 Page |1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE WRIT IS A PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION AND IS MAINTAINABLE.

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present writ is in the nature of public interest and
hence is maintainable. Public Interest can be defined as something in which the public has some
interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. 2 The expression PIL means a legal
action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of interest by which the legal rights of public
or a class of community are affected3. It is a cooperative effort by the petitioner, the State of public
authority and the judiciary to secure observance of constitutional or basic human rights, benefits
and privileges upon poor, downtrodden and vulnerable sections of the society4. In the case at hand,
it can be seen that the trial was vitiated by illegality and there was no cross-examination of
witnesses by the defence lawyer5. Apart from this the jail authorities failed to follow procedure
post rejection of mercy petition6. In light of these facts executing Mr X shall not only violate his
fundamental right to life7 but shall also be a mockery of the whole judicial system.

Bearing in mind the social situation of Mr X, it is needed in the interest of justice8 that the rules of
locus standi be diluted and the present petition be heard. Where a legal wrong is caused to a person
by reason of violation of any constitutional right and such person is unable to approach the Court
for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order
or writ, in the High Court under Article 226.9 It is also pertinent to note that writs where delay in
execution of death penalty has been caused due to executive action or inaction, have been held to
be maintainable by Hon’ble Courts.10 Also, it is pleaded before the Hon’ble Court that a single
person can constitute a class11 and hence a PIL filed to protect the interest and basic human right
of one man is maintainable.

2
Garner B.A., Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed., 2009).
3
Aiyer P.R., Advanced Law Lexicon, (3rd ed., 2005).
4
People's Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others, (1982) 3 SCC 235.
5
¶ 9, Factsheet.
6
¶ 14, Factsheet.
7
Art. 21, the Constitution of Indica.
8
State Of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors, (2010) 3 SCC 402.
9
S.P. Gupta v. President of India & Others, AIR 1982 SC 149.
10
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1. Peoples’ Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union
of India & Ors, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No 57810 of 2014 (Allahabad High Court, 28/01/2015).
11
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India and Others, 1951 AIR 41.

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 Page |2

2. IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY WAS DONE IMPROPERLY AND

VIOLATES LEGAL PRINCIPLES.

2.1.The conviction of Mr X was done without proper appropriation of evidence.

Capital punishment must be imposed after following fair procedure12 and when guilt is clearly
proved leaving no room for reasonable doubt or alternative explanation of the fact. 13 Mr X was
represented by a government appointed lawyer who was disinterested in the case. Neither were the
prosecution witnesses cross examined, nor was any evidence produced on behalf of the defence.14
The High Court merely decided on the quantum of the punishment and the procedural lacks in the
case were not questioned.15 The proceedings from Court of Sessions to the refusal of mercy petition
took merely two years16. All these facts lead to the conclusion that the very foundation of the
conviction was faulty.

2.2.The president did not use power of pardon judiciously.

Executive clemency exists to afford relief from undue harshness or evident mistake in the
operation or enforcement of the criminal law.17 The power vested in the President under Article
72 of the Constitution is a Constitutional duty.18 It is neither a matter of grace nor a matter of
privilege but is an important constitutional responsibility reposed by the people in the highest
authority. It is well settled that the power of pardon19 is to be exercised on the aid and advice of
the Council of Ministers.20

In the present petition it can be seen that the petition was disposed of hastily and there is no mention
of consultation with the Council of Ministers. There was no judicious application of mind when
dealing with the clemency petition and hence there is need for reconsideration by Court of law.

12
Art. 14, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966.
13
Economic and Social Council, Res 1984/50, (26/05/1984) available at
https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/Safeguards_Guaranteeing_Protection_of_the_Rights_of_those_Facing_
the_Death_Penalty.pdf, last seen on 25/01/2016.
14
¶ 8, Factsheet.
15
¶ 10, Factsheet.
16
¶ 13, Factsheet.
17
James Shewan and Sons v. U.S., 267 US 86 (1925).
18
Kuljeet Singh v. Lt. Governor, (1982) 1 SCC 417.
19
Art. 72, the Constitution of Indica.
20
Supra 18.

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 Page |3

2.3.The imposition of death penalty in the present case would violate legal principles.

A perusal of some of the Supreme Court decisions involving award of death penalty would reveal
that sudden impulse or provocation21 uncontrollable hatred arising out of sex indulgence22, family
feud or land dispute, infidelity of wife23 or sentence of death hanging over the head of the accused
for a considerable long period of time due to law's delay24, have been accepted as extenuating
circumstances justifying lesser penalty of life imprisonment instead of death sentence.

In the present case, not only there has been inordinate delay in the execution of death penalty, but
attention needs to be drawn on the fact that the alleged crime has its genesis on doubts regarding
fidelity of the convict’s wife25 and happened in a fit of rage26.

3. EXECUTION OF THE CONVICT AT PRESENT STAGE WOULD VIOLATE

CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE.

The Constitution guarantees right to life and personal liberty to all which includes right to live
with human dignity. No person shall be deprived of his right except according to the procedure
established by law27. Therefore, the state may take away or abridge even right to life; but this
procedure must be “due process”.28 The procedure which takes away the sacrosanct life of a human
being must be just, fair and reasonable. Due process29 does not end with only reasonable
pronouncement of death sentence rather it extends till the proper and due execution of sentence.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights30 provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or
to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.31 It is well-established that a prisoner
cannot be tortured or subjected to unfair or inhuman treatment.32 Prolonged delay in execution of

21
Ummilal v. State of M.P., AIR 1981 SC 1710. Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1384. Gura Singh v.
State of Rajasthan, (1984) Cr. L.J. 1423.
22
Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 799.
23
Bishnu Dev Shaw v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 SC 702.
24
T. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1983 Cr LJ 481.
25
¶ 4, Factsheet.
26
¶ 5, Factsheet.
27
Art. 21, the Constitution of Indica.
28
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
29
Ibid.
30
Art. 5, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
31
Art. 7, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966.
32
State Of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Sangzgiri, 1966 AIR 424. D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik & Ors v. State
Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 1974 AIR 2092. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980 AIR 1579.

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 Page |4

death sentence due to external factors is inhuman and degrading.33 It has a dehumanizing effect
and has the constitutional implication of depriving a person of his life in an unjust, unfair and
unreasonable way so as to offend the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 34

Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive. They sustain, strengthen and nourish each
other35. They are available to prisoners as well as free men. Prison walls do not keep out
Fundamental Rights.36 The delay in execution of death sentence would entitle the convicted person
to seek conversion or alteration of death sentence into life imprisonment37. The cause of delay is
immaterial when the sentence is that of "death" and a person under sentence of death may also
claim fundamental rights, i.e. procedure under Article 21 must be just, fair and reasonable.38

In the case at hand, there has been a prolonged, unnecessary and avoidable delay of more than 17
years in execution after the disposal of the mercy petition. Prolonged delay in the execution of a
death sentence is an important consideration to determine whether the sentence should be allowed
to be executed.39 Hon’ble Courts have directed to commute death sentence to imprisonment for
life when there were no reasons to justify prolonged delay on grounds of Article 21.40

A convict under a sentence of death is subject to an intense psychological stress, caused by the
trauma of the uncertainty of life itself.41 Judicial recognition of what is described as the death row
phenomenon has evolved into a constitutional standard that the execution of a sentence of death
should not be unnecessarily prolonged.42 Delay in execution is not infrequent which is a violation
of accused’s basic human rights including right to live with dignity which is enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.43

33
Noel Riley v. A.G. of Jamaica, (1982) 3 WLR 557.
34
T. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1983 Cr LJ 481.
35
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
36
Supra 34.
37
Triveni Ben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 142.
38
Supra 34.
39
Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 344.
40
Madhu Mehta v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 62.
41
Dwight Aarons, Can inordinate delay between a death sentence and execution constitute cruel and unusual
punishment?, 29 Seton Hall L. Rev. 147 (1998).
42
Patrick Hudson, Does the death row phenomenon violate a prisoner’s human right under international law?, EJIL
(2000), Vol 11 No 4, available at http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/11/4/556.pdf, last seen on 26/01/2016.
43
I.G. Ahmad, Death Sentence and Criminal Justice in Human Rights Perspective, available at
www.bhu.ac.in/lawfaculty/blj2006...09/.../2_Prof.%20I.G.Ahmad.doc, last seen on 26/01/2016.

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 Page |5

Certain supervening events have been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in support of
the plea of a commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. These are delay,
insanity, solitary confinement, judgments declared per incuriam and
procedural lapses.44 Where the executive or the constitutional authorities have failed to take note
of or consider relevant aspects; that independently would justify the invocation of the jurisdiction
to commute a sentence of death into imprisonment for life.45 The ambit of Article 21 travels beyond
the pronouncing of the sentence and extends to the execution of the sentence. Where there is a
prolonged delay in the execution of the sentence of death beyond the control of the prisoner, it
would mandate the commutation of the sentence.46

A convict who complains of avoidable and prolonged delay in the execution of the sentence of
death is under no obligation to produce evidence of suffering or the harm caused on account of the
delay. Proof of actual harm is not a requirement of law to sustain a plea of commutation.47 The
execution of the death sentence, which is a culmination of a prolonged period of respite, is
inhuman.48

Mental health of the convict should be evaluated before issuing death warrant.49 In the present case
no such evaluation was done. Black warrant was issued without consideration of any psychological
factors and re-evaluation.

The delay in the present case has been caused purely due to the incompetence of the jail authorities
who failed to follow procedure post disposal of mercy petition. The convict was kept with ordinary
criminals rather than in the death row cells.50 The delay in the execution of Mr X is solely because
of lackadaisical attitude shown by the administrative authority in-charge of the convict.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is prayed before the Hon’ble Court
that execution of Mr X shall be a grave violation of fundamental rights and such desecration be
stopped.

44
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1.
45
Peoples’ Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union of India & Ors, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No
57810 of 2014 (Allahabad High Court, 28/01/2015).
46
Ibid.
47
V Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 242.
48
Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan v. Attorney General of Jamaica, 4 All E.R. 769 (Privy Council, 1993).
49
Supra 44.
50
¶ 14, Factsheet.

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~

 P a g e | xvi

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to adjudge the petition and

1. Issue a writ of mandamus to the prison authorities granting interim injunction over the
execution of death penalty while the matter is under consideration.

2. Commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.

And pass any other relief, that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice,
equity and good conscience.

For this act of justice, the Petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd/-
Counsel for the Petitioner

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~