Smt. Triveniben & Ors Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors [1989] INSC 44 (7 February 1989)

Smt. Triveniben & Ors Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors [1989] INSC 44 (7 February 1989)

Oza, G.L. (J) Oza, G.L. (J) Sharma, L.M. (J) Dutt, M.M. (J) Singh, K.N. (J) Shetty, K.J. (J)

CITATION: 1989 AIR 1335 1989 SCR (1) 509 1989 SCC (1) 678 JT 1989 (1) 314

CITATOR INFO : R 1989 SC2299 (3) E&F 1991 SC 345 (12,19,20) R 1991 SC1548 (3,5,8,10)

ACT:

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32--Death sentence--Undue long delay in execution--When justifies commutation to life imprisonment--Whether Supreme Court can reopen the conclusions reached by the court sentencing the prisoner--Earlier judgment of Court--Whether can be challenged on ground of violation of fundamental rights--Mercy petitions--Expeditious disposal of--Necessity Art. 20(1)--Death sentence--Securing convict in prison until execution of sentence----Whether amounts to double jeopardy.

Art. 21--Person sentenced to death--Inordinate delay in execution of sentence--Whether amounts to mental torture--Necessity for observance of procedural fairness emphasised.

Arts. 141-145--Larger Bench of the Court--Whether enti- tled to overrule view of a smaller Bench.

Arts. 72, 161--Mercy petitions--Expeditious disposal of-Necessity for.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sections 413, 4 14 and 354(3)-Delay in execution of death sentence--Whether can be a ground for commutation to life imprisonment--Time taken upto final verdict-Whether to be excluded in considering delay in execution of death sentence--Whether any time limit can be prescribed for execution of death sentence--Good conduct of prisoner after final verdict--Whether can be ground for commutation.

Indian Penal Code, 1860---Sections 120-B, 121, 132, 302, 307 & 396--Death sentence--Whether constitutionally valid.

HEAD NOTE:

The accused were convicted under s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death by the trial court. The High Court con- firmed their conviction and 510 sentence.. This Court dismissed their special leave peti- tions/appeals and subsequent review petitions. Their mercy petitions to the President and/ or Governor were also re- jected. Therefore, they approached this Court by way of Writ Petitions for setting aside the death sentence and substi- tuting it by a sentence of life imprisonment on the ground of prolonged delay in the execution. They contended that the dehumanising factor of prolonged delay with the mental torture in confinement in jail had rendered the execution unconstitutional.

In view of the conflicting decisions of this Court in T.V. Vaitheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1983] 2 SCR 348 and Sher Singh & Ors. v. The State of Punjab, [1983] 2 SCR 582 and observations in Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra, [1985] 2 SCR 8 on the question of delay, the writ petitions were referred to a five judges Bench.

While a Bench of two Judges held in Vaitheeswaran's case that two years delay in execution of the sentence after the judgment of the trial court would entitle the condemned prisoner to ask for commutation of his sentence of death to imprisonment for life, a three Judges' Bench held, in Sher Singh's case, that delay alone is not good enough for commu- tation and two year's rule could not be laid down in the cases of delay and that the Court in the context of the nature of the offence and delay, could consider the question of commutation of death sentence. In Javed's case this Court observed that where the condemned man had suffered more than two years and nine months and was repenting and there was nothing adverse against him in the jail records, this period of two years and nine months with the sentence of death heavily weighing on his mind, would entitle him for commuta- tion of sentence of death into imprisonment for life.

The questions for consideration in these cases were:

(a) whether prolonged delay in execution of the sentence of death rendered it inexecutable and entitled the accused to demand the alternate sentence of imprisonment for life,

(b) what should be the starting point for computing this delay,

(c) what were the rights of a condemned prisoner who had been sentenced to death but not executed, and

(d) what could be the circumstances which should be considered along with the time that had been taken before the sentence is executed.

On October 11, 1988 this Court dismissed all the writ petitions, except Writ Petition No. 1566 of 1985, which was partly allowed and the sentence of death awarded to the accused was substituted by the sen- 511 tence of imprisonment. Over-ruling the decision in Vaitheeswarans case that two years' delay would make the sentence of death in executable, this Court held that undue long delay in execution of the sentence of death would entitle the condemned person to approach this Court under Article 32 but this Court would only examine the nature of delay caused and circumstances ensued after sentence was finally confirmed by the judicial process and would have no jurisdiction to reopen the conclusions reached by the Court while finally maintaining the sentence of death, that this Court, might consider the question of inordinate delay in the light of all circumstances of the case to decide whether the execu- tion of the sentence should be carried out or should be altered into imprisonment for life and that no fixed period of delay would be held to make the sentence of death inexe- cutable. Reasons for the judgment were to follow.

Giving the reasons for the Judgment, HELD: Majority: Oza, Murari Mohon Dutt, Singh and Sharma JJ.

Per Oza, J:

1.1 The delay which could be considered while consider- ing the question of commutation of sentence of death into one of life imprisonment could only be from .the date the judgment by the apex Court is pronounced i.e when the judi- cial process has come to an end. [528E-F]

1.2 The condemned prisoner knows that the judgment pronounced by the Sessions Court in the case of capital punishment is not final unless confirmed by the High Court.

All the delay upto the final judicial process is taken care of while the judgment is finally pronounced, and in a number of cases the time that has elapsed from the date of offence till the final decision, has weighed with the courts and lesser sentence awarded only on this account. [526E, H; 527A] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalla Singh and others, [1978] 1 SCC 142; Sadhu Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 1506; State of U.P.v. Sahai, AIR 1981 SC 1442 and Joseph Peter v. State of Goa, Daman & Diu, [1977] 3 SCR 771, referred to.

Piare Dusadh and others v. The King Emperor, [1944] Federal Court Reports 61, referred to.

1.3 Practically, in all the High Courts a confirmation case i.e. a 512 case where the sentence of death is awarded by the Sessions Court and is pending in the High Court for confirmation in the High Court a time bound programme is provided in the rules and, except on some rare occasions, the High Court has disposed of a confirmation case between six months to one year. At the Sessions level also, the normal procedure of the sessions trial is that it is taken up day today and it is expected that such a sessions case should be given top priority and it is expected that such trials must continue day to day till it is concluded. Even in this Court, al- though there is no specific rule, normally these matters are given top priority, and ordinarily, it is expected that these matters will be given top priority and shall be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, as long as the matter is pending in any Court before any final adjudication, even the person who has been condemned or sentenced to death has a ray of hope. Therefore, it could not be contended that he suffers that mental torture which a person suffers when he knows that he is to be hanged but waits for the Dooms day. [527G-H; 528C-E]

1.4 After the matter is finally decided judicially, it is open to the person to approach the President or the Governor as the case may be with a mercy petition. It is no doubt true that sometimes such mercy petition and review petitions are filed repeatedly causing delay, but a legiti- mate remedy if available in law, a person is entitled to seek it and it would, therefore, be proper that if there has been undue and prolonged delay, that alone will be a matter attracting the jurisdiction of this Court, to consider the question of execution of the sentence. However, while con- sidering the question of delay after the final verdict is pronounced, the time spent on petitions for review and repeated mercy petitions at the instance of convicted person himself shall not be considered. [528F, G; 529A]

1.5 The only delay which would be material for consider- ation will be the delay in disposal of the mercy petitions or delays occurring at the instance of the Executive. [529B]

1.6 When petitions under Art. 72 or 161 are received by the authorities concerned, it is expected that these peti- tions shall be disposed of expeditiously. [529C] T.V. Vaitheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1983] 2 SCR 348, over-ruled.

Sher Singh & Others v. The State of Punjab, [1983] 2 SCR 582, affirmed.

513 Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra, [1985] 2 SCR 8, referred to.

2.1 A judgment of the Court can never be challenged under Art. 14 or 21 and, therefore, the judgment of the court awarding the sentence of death is not open to chal- lenge as violating Art. 14 or 21. [531G-H] Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. v. State of Maharash- tra and Anr., [1966] 3 SCR 744 and A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and another, [1988] 2 SCC 602, relied on.

2.2 The only jurisdiction which could be sought to be exercised by a prisoner for infringement of his rights can be to challenge the subsequent events after the final judi- cial verdict is pronounced and it is because of this that on the ground of long or inordinate delay a condemned prisoner could approach this Court. [532A-B]

2.3 It will not be open to this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 32 to go behind or to examine the final verdict reached by a competent court convicting and sentencing the condemned prisoner and even while considering the circumstances in order to reach a conclusion as to whether the inordinate delay coupled with subsequent circum- stances could be held to be sufficient for coming to a conclusion that execution of the sentence of death will not be just and proper. The nature of the offence, circumstances in which the offence was committed will have to be taken as found by the competent court while finally passing the verdict. It may also be open to the court to examine or consider any circumstances after the final verdict was pronounced if it is considered relevant. [532B-D]

2.4 The question of improvement in the conduct of the prisoner after the final verdict also cannot be considered for coming to the conclusion whether the sentence could be altered on that ground also. [532D]

3.1 Before 1955, sentence of death was the rule, the alternative sentence had to be explained by reasons. There- after, it was left to the discretion of the court to inflict either of the sentences and ultimately in the 1973 Code normal sentence is imprisonment for life except that for the special reasons to be recorded sentence of death could be passed. This indicates a trend against sentence of death but this coupled with the decisions wherein sentence of death has been accepted as constitu- 514 tional, show that although there is a shift from sentence of death to lesser sentence, there is a clear intention of maintaining this sentence to meet the ends of justice in appropriate cases. Therefore, in spite of the divergent trends in the various parts of the world there is a consist- ent thought of maintaining the sentence of death on the statute book for some offences and in certain circumstances where it may be thought necessary to award this extreme penalty. It is awarded in the rarest of rare cases and this is the accepted position of law. [524B-D] Bachan Singh etc. etc. v. State of Punjab etc. etc., [1983] 1 SCR 145 and Machhi Singh and others v. State of Punjab, [1983] 3 SCC 470 referred to.

3.2 The circumstances in which the extreme penalty should be inflicted cannot be enumerated in view of complex situation in society and the possibilities in which the offence could be committed and the Legislature was, there- fore, right in leaving it to the discretion of the judicial decision as to what should be the sentence in particular circumstances of the case. But the Legislature has put a further rider that when the extreme penalty is inflicted it is necessary for the court to give special reasons thereof.

[525H; 526A-B]

4. The prisoner, who is sentenced and kept in jail custody under a warrant under s. 366(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is neither suffering rigorous imprisonment nor simple imprisonment. In substance, he is in jail so that he is kept safe and protected with the purpose that he may be available for execution of the sentence which has been awarded. Hence this will not amount to double jeopardy. [53 1E] The life of the condemned prisoner in jail awaiting execution of sentence must be such which is not like a prisoner suffering the sentence, and it is essential that he must be kept safe. [531F] Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, [1979] 1 SCR 392 re- ferred to.

Per Jagannatha Shetty, J (Concurring):

5. Article 21 demands that any procedure which takes away the life and liberty of persons must be reasonable, just and fair. This procedural fairness is required to be observed at every stage and till the last breath of the life. [546C] 515 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 1 SCC 248; The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali, [1952] SCR 284; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1980] 2 SCC 684; Mithu v. State of Punjab, [1983] 2 SCC 277 and Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, [1983] 2 SCC 582, relied on.

6.1 The delay which is sought to be relied upon by the accused consists of two parts. The first part covers the time taken in the judicial proceedings. It is the time that the parties have spent for trial, appeal, further appeal and review. The second part takes into fold the time utilized by the executive in the exercise of its prerogative clemency. [547H; 548A-B]

6.2 The time taken in the judicial proceedings by way of trial and appeal was for the benefit of the accused. It was intended to ensure a fair trial to the accused and to avoid hurry-up justice. The time is spent in the public interest for proper administration of justice. If there is inordinate delay in disposal of the case, the trial court while sen- tencing or the appellate court while disposing of the appeal may consider the delay and the cause thereof along with other circumstances. The court before sentencing is bound to hear the parties and take into account every circumstance for and against the accused. If the court awards death sentence, notwithstanding the delay in disposal of the case, there cannot be a second look at the sentence, save by way of review. [548F-H]

6.3 There cannot be a second trial on the validity of sentence based on Art. 21. The execution which is impugned is execution of a judgment and not apart from judgment. If the judgment with the sentence awarded is valid and binding, it fails to be executed in accordance with law. Therefore, if the delay in disposal of the case is not a mitigating circumstance for lesser sentence, it would be wholly inap- propriate to fail back upon the same delay to impeach the execution. [548H; 549A-B]

6.4 If the delay in passing the sentence cannot render the execution unconstitutional, the delay subsequent thereof cannot also render it unconstitutional- Much less any fixed period of delay could be held to make the sentence inexe- cutable. It would be arbitrary to fix any period of limita- tion for execution on the ground that it would be a denial of fairness in procedure under Article 21. [549B-C] T.V. Vaitheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1983] 2 SCR 348, over-ruled. 516

6.5 The time taken by the executive for disposal of mercy petitions may depend upon the nature of the case and the scope of enquiry to be made. It may also depend upon the number of mercy petitions submitted by or on behalf of the accused. The Court, therefore, cannot prescribe a time limit for disposal of even mercy petitions. However, Article 21 is relevant at all stages, and the principle that speedy trial is a part of one's fundamental right to life and liberty is no less important for disposal of mercy petition. [549E-F] Hussainara Khatoon v. The State of Bihar, [1979] 3 SCR 169 and 1980 1 SCC 81 and Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar, [1981] 3 SCC 671 and 1983 2 SCC 104 relied on.

6.6 It has been universally recognised that a condemned person has to suffer a degree of mental torture even though there is no physical mistreatment and no primitive torture.

He may be provided with amenities of ordinary inmates in the prison. But nobody could succeed in giving him peace of mind. [549G-H] Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, [1978] 4 SCC 494 re- ferred to.

As between funeral fire and mental worry, it is the latter which is more devastating, for, funeral fire burns only the dead body while the mental worry burns the living one. This mental torment may become acute when the judicial verdict is finally set against the accused. Earlier to it, there was every reason for him to hope for acquittal. That hope is extinguished after the final verdict. If, therefore, there is inordinate delay in execution, the condemned pris- oner is entitled to come to the court requesting to examine whether, it is just and fair to allow the sentence of death to be executed. [550C]

6.7 The jurisdiction of the Court at this stage, is extremely limited. The Court, while examining the matter, cannot take into account the time utilised in the judicial proceedings up to the final verdict. The Court also cannot take into consideration the time taken for disposal of any petition filed by or on behalf of the accused either under Art. 226 or under Art. 32 of the Constitution after the final judgment affirming the conviction and sentence. The Court may only consider whether there was undue long delay in disposing of mercy petition; whether the State was guilty of dilatory conduct and whether the delay was for no reason at all. Though the inordinate delay may be a significant factor, but that by itself cannot render the execution uncon- 517 stitutional. Nor it can be divorced from the dastardly and diabolical circumstances of the crime itself. [550D-G] T.V. Vaitheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1983] 2 SCR 348 over-ruled.

Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, [1983] 2 SCR 582 affirmed.

Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra, [1985] 2 SCR 8; Vivian Rodrick v. The State of West Bengal, [1971] 1 SCR 468; State of U.P. v. Paras Nath Singh & Ors., [1973] 3 SCC 647; Bihar v. Pashupati Singh, [1974] 3 SCC 376; State of U.P. v. Suresh, [1981] 3 SCC 635 at 643; State ofU. P. v. Sahai, [1982] 1 SCC 352; Ram Adhar v. State of U.P., [1979] 3 SCC 774 at 777; State of U.P. v. Lalla Singh [1978] 4 SCC 428; Nachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1975] 3 SCC 266; Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1975] 1 SCC 234; Lajar Mashi v. State of U.P., [1976] 1 SCC 806;

Hussainara Khatoon v. The State of Bihar, [1979] 3 SCR 169 and 1980 1 SCC 81 and Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar, [1981] 3 SCC 671 and 1983 2 SCC 104 referred to.

6.8 If the Court wants to have a look at the grievance as to delay then there should not be any delay either in listing or in disposal of the matter. The person who com- plaints about the delay in the execution should not be put to further delay. The matter, therefore, must be expedi- tiously and on top priority basis, disposed of. [550D-E]

6.9 The contention that the accused should not be exe- cuted if he has since improved is unavailable, since it seeks to substitute a new procedure which the Code does not provide for. [551B]

7. The judicial verdict pronounced by court in relation to a matter cannot be challenged on the ground that it violates one's fundamental right. The judgment of a court cannot be said to affect the fundamental rights of citizens.

[534A-B] Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar, [1963] 3 SCR 744 relied on.

8. It is now obligatory for the court to state reasons for the sentence awarded for the offence of murder. The court cannot award death sentence without giving special reasons and only in exceptional cases and not in the usual run of murders. There are just six offences carrying death penalty and that too as an alternate sentence. [543E-F] 518

9. The criminal law always keeps pace with the develop- ment of society. The punishment which meets the unanimous approval in one generation, may rank as the most reprehensi- ble form of cruelty in the next. The representatives of the people are cognizant of the contemporary social needs. The legislative amendments brought about from time to time are indicative of their awareness. The penal law cannot remain isolated and untouched. It will be profoundly influenced by philosophy prevailing. Time may reach for the representa- tives of people to consider that death penalty even as an alternate sentence for murder is uncalled for and unneces- sary. There is nothing in our Constitution to preclude them from deleting that alternate sentence. [540C; 542H; 543H; 544A] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980] 2 SCC 684 and Mithu v. State of Punjab, [1983] 2 SCC 277, referred to.

10. The practice prevailing over the years had been that a larger bench straightaway considers the correctness of and, if necessary, overrules the view of a smaller bench.

This practice has been held to be the crystallised rule of law in a recent decision by a special bench of seven judges of this Court. This must be regarded as a final seal to the controversy, and it is now not open to any one to contend that a bench of two judges cannot be overruled by a bench of three judges. [536H; 537E] A.R. Antulay v.R.S. Nayak, AIR 2988 SC 1532, followed.

& CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CRL) Nos. 1566/86, 186/85,192/86,338/88 & 649/87.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) R.K. Jain, Rangarajan, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, Mohd. Naseem, Rakesh K. Khanna, P.K. Jain, Mukul Mudgal, Sanjay Parikh, B.P. Singh, P. Krishna Rao, B.K. Prasad, Ms. Malini Poduwal, Lalit Kumar Gupta, Manoj Swarup, Harish Salve, Rajiv Garg, Rajiv Shakdhar, N.D. Garg, L.K. Gupta (Amicus-curiae), M. Veerappa and Dalveer Bhandari for the Petitioners.

K. Parasaran, Attorney General, B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, V.C. Mahajan. T.U. Mehta, Anand Prakash, Ms. A Subhashini, A.K. Srivastava, S.K. Bhattacharya, M.N.Shroff, Ms. Sushma Ralhan. Mahabir Singh, AV. Rangam and R.S. Suri for the Respondents.

519 A.K. Goel, Ajit Pudissery and Mrs. Jayamala Singh for the Interveners.

The following Judgments of the Court were delivered:

OZA, J. These matters came up before us because of the conflict in the two decisions of this Court:(i) T.V. Va- theeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1983] 2 SCR 348; Sher Singh & Others v. The State of Punjab, [1983] 2 SCR 582 and observations in the case of Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra, [1985] 2 SCR 8. In Vatheeswaran's case, a Bench of two Judges of this Court held that two years delay in execution of the sentence after the judgment of the trial court will entitle the condemned prisoner to ask for commutation of his sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The Court observed that:

"Making all reasonable allowance for the time necessary for appeal and consideration of reprieve, we think that delay exceeding two years in the execution of a sentence of death should be considered sufficient to entitle the person under sentence of death to invoke Art.

21 and demand the quashing of the sentence of death." In Sher Singh's case which was a decision of a three Judges' Bench it was held that a condemned prisoner has a right of fair procedure at all stages, trial, sentence and incarceration but delay alone is not good enough for commu- tation and two years rule could not be laid down in cases of delay. It was held that the Court in the context of the nature of offence and delay could consider the question of commutation of death sentence. The Court observed:

"Apart from the fact that the rule of two years run in the teeth of common experience as regards the time generally occupied by proceedings in the High Court, the Supreme Court and before the executive authorities. We are of the opinion that no absolute or unqualified rule can be laid down that in every case in which there is a long delay in the execution of a death sentence, the sentence must be substituted by the sentence of life imprisonment. There are several other factors which must be taken into account while considering the question as to whether the death sentence should be vacated. A convict is undoubtedly entitled to pursue all remedies lawfully open to him to get rid 520 of the sentence of death imposed upon him and indeed, there is no one, be he blind, lame, starving or suffering from a terminal illness, who does not want to live." It was further observed:

"Finally, and that is no less important, the nature of the offence, the diverse circum- stances attendant upon it, its impact upon the contemporary society and the question whether the motivation and pattern of the crime are such as are likely to lead to its repetition, if the death sentence is vacated, are matters which must enter into the verdict as to whether the sentence should be vacated for the reason that its execution is delayed. The substitution of the death sentence by a sen- tence of life imprisonment cannot follow by the application of the two years' formula, as a matter of "quoderat demonstrandum".

In Javed's case, it was observed that the condemned man who had suffered more than two years and nine months and was repenting and there was nothing adverse against him in the jail records, this period of two years and nine months with the sentence of death heavily weighing on his mind will entitle him for commutation of sentence of death into im- prisonment for life. It is because of this controversy that the matter was referred to a five-Judges' Bench and hence it is before us.

Learned counsel for the petitioners at length has gone into the sociological, humane and other aspects in which the question of sentence of death has been examined in various decisions and by various authors. It is however not disputed that in Bachan Singh etc. etc. v. State of Punjab etc. etc., [1983] 1 SCR 145 constitutionality of sentence of death has been upheld by this Court. Learned counsel has at length referred to the opinion of Hon. Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati, as he then was, which is the minority opinion in Bachan Singh's case. In his opinion Justice P.N. Bhagwati has conducted a detailed research and has considered the materi- al about the various aspects of sentence of death. Learned Attorney General appearing for the respondents also referred to some portions of the judgment but contended that howsoev- er condemned the sentence may be but its constitutional validity having been accepted by this Court all this study about looking at it from various angles is not of much consequence. He also contended that the opinion has been drifting and the statistics reveal that 521 at one time there was a trend towards abolition of death sentence and then a reverse trend started and therefore all this, so far as the present case is concerned, is not neces- sary. One of the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners was that apart from all other considerations it is clear that this is a sentence which if executed is not reversible and even if later on something so glaring is detected which will render the ultimate conclusion to be erroneous the person convicted and executed could not be brought back to life and it was on this basis that it was contended that although the law provides for the sentence and it has been held to be constitutional but still the Courts should be slow in inflicting the sentence and in fact it was contended that courts are in fact slow in awarding the sentence. In Bachan Singh's case, it was observed:

"To sum up, the question whether or not death penalty serves any penological purpose is a difficult, complex and intractable issue. It has evoked strong, divergent views. For the purpose of testing the constitutionality of the impugned provision as to death penalty in Section 320, Penal Code , on the ground of reasonableness in the light of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to express any categorical opinion, one way or the other, as to which of these two antitheti- cal views, held by the Abolitionists and Retentionists, is correct. It is sufficient to say that the very fact that persons of reason, learning and light are rationally and deeply divided in their opinion on this issue, is a ground among others, for rejecting the petitioners' argument that retention of the death penalty in the impugned provisions, is totally devoid of reason and purpose. If, notwithstanding the view of the Abolitionists to the contrary, a very large segment of people the world over, including sociologists, legislators, jurists, judges and administra- tors still firmly believe in the worth and necessity of capital punishment for the pro- tection of society, if in the perspective of prevailing crime conditions in India, contem- porary public opinion channalised through the people's representatives in Parliament, has repeatedly in the last three decades, rejected all attempts, including the one made recently, to abolish or specifically restrict the area of death penalty, if death penalty is still a recognised legal sanction for murder or some types of murder in most of the civilised countries in the world, if the framers of the Indian Constitution were fully aware of the existence of death 522 penalty as punishment for murder, under the Indian Penal Code, if the 35th Report and subsequent Reports of the Law Commission suggesting retention of death penalty, and recommending revision of the Criminal Proce- dure Code and the insertion of the new sec- tions 235(2) and 354(3) in that Code providing for pre-sentence hearing and sentencing proce- dure on conviction for murder another capital offences were before the Parliament and pre- sumably considered by it when in 1972-73, it took up revision of the Code of 1898, and replaced it by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it cannot be said that the provisions of death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder, in section 302, Penal Code , is unrea- sonable and not in public interest. Therefore, the impugned provision in section 302, vio- lates neither the letter nor the ethos of Article 19." We are in entire agreement with the view expressed above.

It is not necessary to go into the jurisprudential theories of punishment deterrent or retributive in view of what has been laid down in Bachan Singh's case, with which we agree but the learned counsel at length submitted that the modern theorists of jurisprudence have given a go-bye to the retributive theory of punishment although in some coun- tries it is recognised on a different principle i.e. to pacify the public anger whereas some theorists have tried to put both the theories together. So far as the deterrent theory of punishment is concerned even about that doubts have been expressed as regards the real deterrent effect of punishment. The absence of determent effect has been at- tributed to various causes sometimes long delay itself as public memory is always short. When the convict is utlimate- ly sentenced and executed people have forgotten the offence that he has committed and on this basis it is sometimes felt that it has lost its importance. In the present case we are not very much concerned with all these questions except to some extent the question of delay and its effect.

It was also contended that this sentence is a sentence which is irreversible thereby meaning that if ultimately some mistake in convicting and executing the sentence is detected after the sentence is executed there is no possibility of correction. After all the criminal jurisprudence which is in vogue in our system even otherwise eliminates all possibilities of error as benefit of doubt at all stages goes in favour of accused. Apart from it there are only a few offences where sentence of death is provided and there too the manner in which the 523 law has now been changed ultimately the sentence of death is awarded in the rarest of rare case. Therefore not much could be made of the possibility of an error.

The offences in which sentence of death is provided are under Sections 120-B (in some cases), 121, 132,302,307 (in some cases) and 396.

The law as it stood before 1955 the Court was expected to give reasons if it chose not to pass a sentence of death as normally sentence of death was the rule and alternative sentence of imprisonment of life could only be given for special reasons. As Section 367 clause (5) in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 stood:

"If the accused is convicted for an offence punishable with death, and the Court sentences him to any punishment other than death, the Court shall in its judgment state the reasons why the sentence of death was not passed." Section 367 clause (5) of Cr. P.C. was amended in 1955 and after the amendment discretion was left to the courts to give either sentence. Section 367 clause (5) after the amendment reads:

"In trials by jury, the Court need not write a judgment, but the Court of Sessions shall record the heads of the charge to the jury:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to record such heads of the charge in cases where the charge has been delivered in English and taken down in shorthand." Thus the legislature dropped that part of the sub-clause which made it necessary for the Court to state reasons for not awarding sentence of death. Thus after the amendment the legal position was that it was the discretion of the Court to award either of the sentences.

In the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Section 354 clause (3) has now been introduced and it has been provided that in all cases of murder, life imprisonment should be given unless there are special reasons for giving sentence of death. This provision Sec. 354 clause (3)reads:

"When the conviction is for an offence punish- able with 524 death or in the alternative with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sen- tence." It is thus clear that before 1955 sentence of death was the rule, the alternative sentence had to be explained by rea- sons. Thereafter it was left to the discretion of the court to inflict either of the sentences and ultimately in the 1973 Code normal sentence is imprisonment for life except for the special reasons to be recorded sentence of death could be passed. It is therefore clear that this indicates a trend against sentence of death but this coupled with the decisions ultimately wherein sentence of death has been accepted as constitutional go to show that although there is a shift from sentence of death to lesser sentence but there is also a clear intention of maintaining this sentence to meet the ends of justice in appropriate cases. It is there- fore clear that in spite of the divergent trends in the various parts of the World there is consistent thought of maintaining the sentence of death on the statute book for some offences and in certain circumstances where it may be thought necessary to award this extreme penalty. As stated generally that it is awarded in the rarest of rare cases and in this accepted position of law, in our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the academic question about sociologi- cal and humane aspects of the sentence and detailed examina- tion of the jurisprudential theories.

It was also contended though not very seriously that in ultimate analysis out of the two sentences imprisonment for life or death it has been left to the discretion of the courts. On the one hand it was suggested that there are no norms laid down for exercise of discretion but on the other hand it was also admitted that it is very difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule and apparently both the sides realised that the attempt that was made by this Court in enumerating some of the circumstances but could not lay down all possible circumstances in which the sentence could be justified. In Machhi Singh and others v. State of Punjab, [1983] 3 SCC 470 it was observed that:

"In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh's case, will have to be culled out and applied to the facts of each individu- al case where the question of imposing of death sentence arises. The following proposi- tions emerge from Bachan Singh's case:

(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted 525 except in gravest cases of extreme culpabili- ty.

(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the 'crime'.

(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.

(iv) A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circum- stances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.

In order to apply these guidelines inter alia the following questions may be asked and answered:

(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? (b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circum- stances which speak in favour of the offender? If upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of the afore- said' proposition and taking into account the answers to the questions posed hereinabove, the circumstances of the case are such that death sentence is warranted, the court would proceed to do so." In ultimate analysis it could not be disputed and was not seriously disputed that the circumstances in which the extreme penalty 526 should be inflicted cannot be enumerated in view of complex situation in society and the possibilities in which the offence could be committed and in this context in ultimate analysis it is not doubted that the Legislature therefore was right in leaving it to the discretion of the judicial decision as to what should be the sentence in particular circumstances of the case. But the Legislature has put a further rider that when the extreme penalty is inflicted it is necessary for the court to give special reasons thereof.

In the matter before us we are mainly concerned with a) delay in execution of the sentence of death; b) what should be the starting point for computing this delay?; c) what are the rights of a condemned prisoner who has been sentenced to death but not executed? and d) what could be the circum- stances which could be considered alongwith the time that has been taken before the sentence is executed.

The main theme of the arguments on the basis of delay has been the inhuman suffering which a condemned prisoner suffers waiting to be executed and the mental torture it amounts to and it is in this background also that the par- ties argued at length about the starting point which should be considered for computing delay in execution of the sen- tence. On the one hand according to the petitioners the mental torture commences when the trial court i.e. the Sessions Court pronounces the judgment and awards capital punishment. However, learned counsel also conceded that even the condemned prisoner knows that the judgment pronounced by the Sessions Court in the case of capital punishment is not final unless confirmed by the High Court. Mainly therefore it was contended that the real mental torture commences after the death sentence is confirmed by the High Court and therefore to consider the question of delay the time should be computed from the date of the High Court judgment. On the other hand learned Attorney General contended that even if the judgment of confirmation by the High Court is passed in which capital punishment is awarded, invariably comes to this Court and this Court ordinarily grants leave and ap- peals are heard at length and it was therefore contended that the delay in execution of the sentence really could be considered after the pronouncement of the final verdict by this Court and it is only after the final verdict is pro- nounced that it could be said that the judicial process has concluded. It is no doubt true that sometimes in these procedures some time is taken and sometimes even long time is spent. May be for unavoidable circumstances and sometimes even at the instance of the accused but it was contended and rightly so that all this delay upto the final judicial process is taken care of while 527 the judgment is finally pronounced and it could not be doubted that in number of cases considering the time that has elapsed from the date of the offence till the final decision has weighed with the courts and lesser sentence awarded only on this account.

As early as in 1944, the Federal Court in Piare Dusadh and others v. The King Emperor, [1944] Federal Court Reports 61 observed:

"It is true that death sentences were imposed in these cases several months ago, that the appellants have been lying ever since under the threat of execution, and that the long delay has been caused very largely by the time taken in proceedings over legal points in respect of the constitution of the courts before which they were tried and of the valid- ity of the sentences themselves. We do not doubt that this court has power, where there has been inordinate delay in executing death sentences in cases which come before it, to allow the appeal in so far as death sentence is concerned and subsitute a sentence of transportation for life on account of the time factor alone, however right the death sentence was at the time when it was originally im- posed." Similarly in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalla Singh and others, [1978] 1 SCC 142; Sadhu Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 1506; State of U.P. v. Sahai, AIR 1981 SC 1442 and Joseph Peter v. State of Goa. Daman & Diu, [1977] 3 SCR 771 while finally deciding the matter the courts have taken notice of the delay that has occurred in the judicial proc- ess.

It was contended that Article 21 contemplates not only a fair procedure but also expeditious procedure and in this context it was contended that observations be made so that judicial process also is concluded as expeditiously as possible. Learned Attorney General has filed compilation of rules of various High Courts and it is not disputed that practically in all the High Courts, a confirmation case where the sentence of death is awarded by the Sessions Court and the case is pending in the High Court for confirmation time bound programme is provided in the rules and it could be said that except on some rare occasion the High Court has disposed of a confirmation case between six months to one year and therefore it could not be said that there is no procedure provided for expeditious disposal of these cases.

At the Sessions level also the normal procedure of the Sessions trial is that it is taken up day to day although after coming into force of the Code of 528 Criminal Procedure in 1973 where the number of offences triable by the Sessions Court have been increased but there is sometimes a slight departure from the normal rule which is the cause to some extent for some slackness in the Ses- sions trial but attempt is always made and it is expected that Sessions case where offences alleged is one which is punishable with death should be given top priority and normally it Is given top priority and it is expected that the trials must continue day to day unless it is concluded.

Although it is well-known that sometimes it is at the in- stance of the advocates appearing for defence also that this normal rule is given a go-bye but ordinarily it is expected that these cases must be tried expeditiously and disposed of.

Even in this Court although there does not appear to be a specific rule but normally these matters are given top priority. Although it was contended that this reference before us--a Bench of five-Judges, was listed for heating after a long interval of time. We do not know why this reference could not, be listed except what is generally well-known the difficulty of providing a Bench of five Judges but ordinarily it is expected that even in this Court the matters where the capital punishment is involved will be given top priority and shall be heard of and disposed of as expeditiously as possible but it could not be doubted that so long as the matter is pending in any Court before final adjudication even the person who has been condemned or who has been sentenced to death has a ray of hope. It therefore could not be contended that he suffers that mental torture which a person suffers when he knows that he is to be hanged but waits for the Dooms-Day. The delay therefore which could be considered while considering the question of commutation of sentence of death into one of life imprisonment could only be from the date the judgment by the apex court is pronounced i.e. when the judicial process has come to an end.

After the matter is finally decided judicially, it is open to the person to approach the President or the Gover- nor, as the case may be, with a mercy petition. Some-times person or at his instance or at the instance of some of his relatives, mercy petition and review petitions are filed repeatedly causing undue delay in execution of the sentence.

It was therefore contended that when such delay is caused at the instance of the person himself he shall not be entitled to gain any benefit out of such delay. It is no doubt true that sometimes such petitions are filed but a legitimate remedy if available in law, a person is entitled to seek it and it would therefore be proper that if there has been undue and prolonged delay that alone will be a matter at- tracting the jurisdiction of this Court, to consider the question of the execution of the 529 sentence. While considering the question of delay after the final verdict is pronounced, the time spent on petitions for review-and repeated mercy petitions at the instance of the convicted person himself however shall not be considered.

The only delay which would be material for consideration will be the delays in disposal of the mercy petitions or delay occurring at the instance of the Executive.

So far as the scope of the authority of the President and the Governor while exercising jurisdiction under Article 72 and Article 16 1 are concerned the question is not at all relevant so far as the case in hand is concerned. But it must be observed that when such petitions under Article 72 or 161 are received by the authorities concerned it is expected that these petitions shall be disposed of expedi- tiously.

It was also contended that when capital punishment is awarded the sentence awarded is only sentence of death but not sentence of death plus imprisonment and therefore if a condemned prisoner has to live in jail for long in substance it amounts to punishment which is sentence of death and imprisonment for some time and this according to the learned counsel will amount to double jeopardy which is contrary to Article 20 and the imprisonment cannot be justified in law.

Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:

"366. Sentence of death to be submitted by Court of Session for confirmation--(1) When the Court of Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings shall be submitted to the High Court, and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court.

(2) The Court passing the sentence shall commit the convicted person to jail custody under a warrant." This no doubt authorises the Court of Sessions to commit a person sentenced to death to jail custody under a warrant.

But this Section does not contemplate how long he has to be in jail. Clause (1) of Section 366 provides that when the Court of Sessions passes a sentence of death the proceedings shall be submitted to the High Court and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. It is therefore apparent that sub-clause (2) provided for committing the convicted person to jail awaiting the confir- mation of the sentence by the High Court. It is also clear that when a person is committed to jail awaiting the execu- tion of the sentence of death, it is not imprisonment but the prisoner has to be kept secured till the 530 sentence awarded by the court is executed and it appears that it is with that purpose in view that sub-clause (2) of Section 366 simply provided for committing the convicted person to jail custody under a warrant.

The question about solitary confinement or keeping the condemned prisoner alone under strict guard as provided in various jail manuals was considered by this Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, [1979] 1 SCR 392 and consid- ering the question of solitary confinment it was observed:

"In our opinion sub-s. (2) of S. 30 does not empower the jail authorities in the garb of confining a prisoner under sentence of death, in a cell apart from all other prisoners, to impose solitary confinement on him. Even jail discipline inhibits solitary confinment as a measure of jail punishment. It completely negatives any suggestion that because a pris- oner is under sentence of death therefore and by reason of that consideration alone, the jail authorities can impose upon him addition- al and separate punishment of solitary con- finement. They have no power to add to the punishment imposed by the Court which addi- tional punishment could have been imposed by the Court itself but has in fact been not so imposed. Upon a true construction, sub-s. (2) S.30 does not empower a prison authority to impose solitary confinment upon a prisoner under sentence of death." In the same judgment, it was further observed:

"What then is the nature of confinement of a prisoner who is awarded capital sentence by the Sessions Judge and no other punishment from the time of sentence till the sentence becomes automatically executable? Section 366(2) of the Cr.P.C. enable the Court to commit the convicted person who is awarded capital punishment to jail custody under a warrant. It is implicit in the warrant that the prisoner is neither awarded simple nor rigorous imprisonment. The purpose behind enacting sub-s. (2) of S.366 is to make avail- able the prisoner when the sentence is re- quired to be executed. He is to be kept in jail custody. But this custody is something different from custody of a convict suffering simple or rigorous imprisonment. He is being kept in jail custody for making him available for execution of the sent- 531 ence as and when that situation arises. After the sentence becomes executable he may be kept in cell apart from other prisoners with a day and night watch. But even here, unless special circumstances exist, he must be within the sight and sound of other prisoners and be able to take food in their company.

If the prisoner under sentence of death is held in jail custody, punitive deten- tion cannot be imposed upon him by jail au- thorities except for prison offences. When a prisoner is committed under a warrant for jail custody under s. 366(2) Cr. P.C. and if he is detained in solitary confinement which is a punishment prescribed by s. 73 IPC , it will amount to imposing punishment for the same offence more than once which would be viola- tive of Article 20(2). But as the prisoner is not to be kept in solitary confinement and the custody in which he is to be kept under s.

30(2) as interpreted by us would preclude detention in solitary confinement, there is no chance of imposing second punishment upon him and therefore, S. 30(2) is not violative of Article 20." It is therefore clear that the prisoner who is sentenced to death and is kept in jail custody under a warrant under Section 366(2) he is neither serving rigorous imprisonment nor simple imprisonment. In substance he is in jail so that he is kept safe and protected with the purpose that he may be available for execution of the sentence which has been awarded and in this view the aspect of solitary confinement has already been dealt with in the above noted case but it must be said that the life of the condemned prisoner in jail awaiting execution of sentence must be such which is not like a prisoner suffering the sentence but it is also essen- tial that he must be kept safe as the purpose of the jail custody is to make him available for execution after the sentence is finally confirmed.

It was contended that the delay in execution of the sentence will entitle a prisoner to approach this Court as his right under Article 21 is being infringed. It is well- settled now that a judgment of court can never be challenged under Article 14 or 21 and therefore the judgment of the court awarding the sentence of death is not open to chal- lenge as violating Article 14 or Article 21 as has been laid down by this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., [1966] 3 SCR 744 and also in A.R. Antulay v.R.S. Nayak and 532 another, [1988] 2 SCC 602 the only jurisdiction which could be sought to be exercised by a prisoner for infringement of his rights can be to challenge the subsequent events after the final judicial verdict is pronounced and it is because of this that on the ground of long or inordinate delay a condemned prisoner could approach this Court and that is what has consistently been held by this Court. But it will not be open to this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 to go behind or to examine the final verdict reached by a competent court convicting and sentencing the condemned prisoner and even while considering the circum- stances in order to reach a conclusion as to whether the inordinate delay coupled with subsequent circumstances could be held to be sufficient for coming to a conclusion that execution of the sentence of death will not be just and proper. The nature of the offence circumstances in which the offence was committed will have to be taken as found by the competent court while finally passing the verdict. It may also be open to the court to examine or consider any circum- stances after the final verdict was pronounced if it is considered relevant. The question of improvement in the conduct of the prisoner after the final verdict also cannot be considered for coming to the conclusion whether the sentence could be altered on that ground also.

So far as our conclusions are concerned we had delivered our Order on October 11, 1988 and we had reserved the rea- sons to be given later. Accordingly in the light of the discussions above our conclusion is as recorded in our Order dated October 11, 1988, reproduced below:

"Undue long delay in execution of the sentence of death will entitle the condemned person to approach this Court under Article 32 but this Court will only examine the nature of delay caused and circumstances ensued after sentence was finally confirmed by the judicial process and will have no jurisdiction to re-open the conclusions reached by the Court while finally maintaining the sentence of death. This Court, however, may consider the question of inordi- nate delay in the light of all circumstances of the case to decide whether the execution of sentence should be carried out or should be altered into imprisonment for life. No fixed period of delay could be held to make the sentence of death inexecutable and to this extent the decision in Vatheeswaran's case cannot be said to lay down the correct law and therefore to that extent stands overruled." 533 K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J- In Bachan Singh v. State of punlab, [1980] 2 SCC 684, this Court pronounced that the provision of death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder, under sec.302 IPC is valid and constitutional.

Sarkaria, J. who spoke for the majority view held that the provisions relating to imposition of death sentence and the procedure prescribed thereof would ensure fairness and reasonableness within the scope of Article 21. It was also observed that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that death penalty under sec. 302 either per se or because of execution by hanging constitutes an unreasonable, cruel or unusual punishment- Nor the mode of its execution has a degrading punishment which would defile the "dignity of the individual' within the preamble to the Constitution. The learned Judge, however, cautioned (at 751):

"A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentali- ty. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionable foreclosed." (Empha- sis supplied) Bachan Singh case has thus narrowly tailored the sen- tencing discretion of courts as to death sentence. Death sentence cannot be given if there is any mitigating circum- stance in favour of the accused. All circumstances of the case should be aggravating. It is in the gravest of grave crimes or in the rarest of rare cases, the death sentence may be awarded. There is no offence in the penal code carry- ing mandatory death penalty. Section 303 IPC carrying the mandatory punishment has been declared unconstitutional in Mithu v. State of Punjab, [1983] 2 SCC 277. So much so, the death sentence is now awarded only in miniscule number of cases.

All the accused in these cases belong to that limited and exceptional category. The trial court convicted them under sec. 302 IPC and sentenced them to death. The High Court confirmed their conviction and sentence. This Court dismissed their special leave petitions or appeals and subsequent review petitions. Their mercy petitions to the President and/or the Governor were also rejected. They have now moved writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitu- tion. They are not seeking to overturn the death sentence on the ground that the Court has illegally inflicted it. Obvi- ously, that they can not do. The judgment of the court has become final. Under Article 141, it shall be binding on all Courts. Under Article 142, it shall be enforceable through- out the territory of India. Under Article 144 all authori- ties, 534 civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of this Court. The judicial verdict pronounced by court in relation to a matter cannot be challenged on the ground that it violates one's fundamental right. The judgment of a court cannot be said to affect the fundamental rights of citizens (See Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar's case, 1963 (3) SCR 744).

The petitioners, however, contend that this Court must set aside the death penalty and substitute a sentence of life imprisonment in view of the prolonged delay in the execution. The dehumanising factor prolonged delay with the mental torture in solitary confinement in jail, according to them, has rendered the execution unconstitutional under Article 21. There are also some other subsidiary contentions to which I will presently refer.

We have earlier dismissed all but one petition giving our unanimous conclusion stating therein that we would give our reasons later. Here are my own reasons in support of that conclusion:

The question whether prolonged delay renders death sentence inexecutable and entitles the accused to demand the alternate sentence of life imprisonment has arisen amid the diversity of judicial decisions in

(i) T.V. Vaitheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1983] 2 SCR 348;

(ii) Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, [1983] 2 SCR 582; and

(iii) Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra, [1985] 2 SCR 8.

Vaitheeswarn case was decided by a two Judge Bench, where Chinnappa Reddy, J. said (at 359):

"We find no impediment in holding that the dehumanising factor of prolonged delay in the execution of a sentence of death has the constitutional implication of depriv- ing a person of his life in an unjust, unfair and unreasonable way as to offend the consti- tutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The appropriate relief in such a case is to vacate the sentence of death." There then the learned Judge said (at 360):

"Making all reasonable allowance for the time necessary for appeal and considera- tion of reprieve, we think that delay exceed- ing two years in the execution of a sentence of death should be considered sufficient to entitle the person 535 under sentence of death to invoke Article 21 and demand the quashing of the sentence of death." Sher Singh case was decided by a three Judge Bench.

Chandrachud, CJ., who spoke for the Bench while disagreeing with above view in Vaitheeswaran, said (at 595):

"The substitution of the death sentence by a sentence of life imprisonment cannot follow by the application of the two years' formula, as a matter of "quod erat demonstrandum." Then followed the decision in Javed Ahmad case. There Chinnappa Reddy, J. raised a question whether a three Judge Bench would overrule the decision of a two Judge Bench merely because three is larger than two? The learned Judge said:

"The court sits in division of two and three Judges for the sake of convenience and it may be inappropriate for a Division Bench of three Judges to purport to over-rule the decision of a Division Bench of two Judges. Vide Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. It may be otherwise where a full Bench does so. We do not, however, desire to embark upon this question in this case. In the present case. we are satisfied that an overall view of all the circumstances appears to us to