By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Friday commuted the demise sentence awarded to a person for the rape and homicide of a widow in 1998, noting he was in solitary confinement in jail for about 10 years.
The high courtroom stated the incarceration of the convict in solitary confinement confirmed unwell results on his well-being.
The apex courtroom was listening to a plea filed by B A Umesh who was concerned within the rape and homicide of a widow in Bengaluru in 1998.
“In the instant case, the death sentence was awarded to the appellant in 2006 by the trial court and the mercy petition was finally disposed of by the President on May 12, 2013, which means that the incarceration of the appellant in solitary confinement and segregation from 2006 to 2013 was without the sanction of law and completely opposed to the principles laid down by this court “In the moment case, the interval of solitary confinement is for about 10 years and has two parts: one, from 2006 until the disposal of the mercy petition in 2013; and secondly from the date of such disposal until 2016,” a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice U U Lalit stated.
The high courtroom stated the ends of justice could be met if the demise sentence awarded to the appellant is commuted.
“The incarceration in solitary confinement thus did show ill effects on the well-being of the appellant. In the backdrop of these features of the matter, in our view, the appellant is entitled to have the death sentence imposed upon him to be commuted to life.”
“We impose upon him the sentence of life imprisonment with a rider that he shall undergo a minimum sentence of 30 years and if any application for remission is moved on his behalf, the same shall be considered on its own merits only after he has undergone the actual sentence of 30 years,” the bench additionally comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha stated.
On the bottom of delay in deciding the enchantment of the convict, the apex courtroom stated the time taken by every of those authorities and the functionaries can’t be termed as “inordinate delay” and secondly it was not as if each passing day was including to the agony of the appellant.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Friday commuted the demise sentence awarded to a person for the rape and homicide of a widow in 1998, noting he was in solitary confinement in jail for about 10 years.
The high courtroom stated the incarceration of the convict in solitary confinement confirmed unwell results on his well-being.
The apex courtroom was listening to a plea filed by B A Umesh who was concerned within the rape and homicide of a widow in Bengaluru in 1998.
“In the instant case, the death sentence was awarded to the appellant in 2006 by the trial court and the mercy petition was finally disposed of by the President on May 12, 2013, which means that the incarceration of the appellant in solitary confinement and segregation from 2006 to 2013 was without the sanction of law and completely opposed to the principles laid down by this court “In the moment case, the interval of solitary confinement is for about 10 years and has two parts: one, from 2006 until the disposal of the mercy petition in 2013; and secondly from the date of such disposal until 2016,” a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice U U Lalit stated.
The high courtroom stated the ends of justice could be met if the demise sentence awarded to the appellant is commuted.
“The incarceration in solitary confinement thus did show ill effects on the well-being of the appellant. In the backdrop of these features of the matter, in our view, the appellant is entitled to have the death sentence imposed upon him to be commuted to life.”
“We impose upon him the sentence of life imprisonment with a rider that he shall undergo a minimum sentence of 30 years and if any application for remission is moved on his behalf, the same shall be considered on its own merits only after he has undergone the actual sentence of 30 years,” the bench additionally comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha stated.
On the bottom of delay in deciding the enchantment of the convict, the apex courtroom stated the time taken by every of those authorities and the functionaries can’t be termed as “inordinate delay” and secondly it was not as if each passing day was including to the agony of the appellant.
