navneet kaur v. state of nct of delhi

8/21/2019 Navneet Kaur v. State of NCT of Delhi

1/9Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

CURATIVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 88 OF 2013 IN

REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 435 OF 2013 IN

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 14 OF 2011

Navneet Kaur ... Petitioner(s)

versus

State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ... Respondent(s)

J U D ! M E N T

P.S"#$"%&'" CJI.

1) Navneet Kaur wo Devender Pal Sin!h "hullar# filed the

present Curative Petition a!ainst the dis$issal of Review

Petition (Cri$inal) No.%' of 1 in *rit Petition (Cri$inal)

No. 1%+ of 11 on 1.,.1# wherein she pra-ed for

settin! aside the death sentene i$posed upon Devender

Pal Sin!h "hullar /- o$$utin! the sa$e to i$prison$ent

for life on the !round of supervenin! iru$stane of dela-

1


2/9Page 2

of , -ears in disposal of $er- petition.

) Considerin! the li$ited issue involved# there is no need to

traverse all the fatual details. The /rief /a0!round of the

ase is "- 2ud!$ent dated '.,.1# Devender Pal Sin!h

"hullar was sentened to death /- the Desi!nated 3ud!e#

Delhi. Thereafter# he preferred an appeal /ein! Cri$inal

Appeal No. 44 of 1 /efore this Court and /- 2ud!$ent

dated ..# this Court onfir$ed the death sentene

and dis$issed his appeal. A!ainst the dis$issal of the

appeal /- this Court# the aused preferred Review Petition

(Cri$inal) No. %45 of # whih was also dis$issed /- this

Court on 15.1..

) Soon after the dis$issal of the review petition# the

aused su/$itted a $er- petition dated 1%.1. to the

President of 6ndia under Artile 5 of the Constitution and

pra-ed for o$$utation of his sentene. Durin! the

penden- of the petition filed under Artile 5# he also filed

Curative Petition (Cri$inal) No. ' of whih was also

dis$issed /- this Court on 1...

%) 7n .'.11# a o$$uniation was sent fro$ the 3oint

Seretar- (3udiial) to the Prinipal Seretar-# 8o$e

2


3/9Page 3

Depart$ent# 9overn$ent of NCT of Delhi# statin! that the

President of 6ndia has re2eted the $er- petition su/$itted

on /ehalf of Devender Pal Sin!h "hullar. The sa$e was also

o$$uniated to the Superintendent# Central 3ail No. #

Tihar 3ail# New Delhi on 1.+.11.

') 7n %.+.11# the wife of the aused (petitioner herein)

preferred a *rit Petition (Cri$inal) No. 1%+ of 11 /efore

this Court pra-in! for :uashin! the o$$uniation dated

1.+.11. "- order dated 1.%.1# this Court# after

e;a$inin! and anal-


4/9Page 4

whih was also dis$issed /- this Court on 1.,.1.

Su/se:uentl-# the wife of the aused# petitioner herein has

filed the a/ove Curative Petition for onsideration /- this

Court.

5) 8eard =r. KTS Tulsi# learned senior ounsel appearin! on

/ehalf of the petitioner and =r. 9.>. ?ahanvati# learned

Attorne- 9eneral for 6ndia appearin! on /ehalf of the

respondents.

,) ?er- reentl-# a three@3ud!e "enh of this Court# in *rit

Petition (Cri$inal) No. '' of 1 >t., titled Shatrughan

Chauhan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1% (1)

SCA> %5# /- order dated 1.1.1%# o$$uted the

sentene of death i$posed on the petitioners therein to

i$prison$ent for life whih has a ruial /earin! for deidin!

the petition at hand. 6n the aforesaid verdit# this Court

validated the esta/lished priniple and held that

une;plainedunreasona/leinordinate dela- in disposal of

$er- petition is one of the supervenin! iru$stanes for

o$$utation of death sentene to life i$prison$ent.

4) *hile deidin! the aforesaid issue in the a/ove deision#

the "enh was si$ultaneousl- alled upon to deide a

4


5/9Page 5

speifi issue vi


6/9Page 6

',) As ri!htl- pointed out /- =r. Ra$ 3eth$alani# it is opento the le!islature in its wisdo$ to deide /- enatin! anappropriate law that a ertain fi;ed period ofi$prison$ent in addition to the sentene of death an /ei$posed in so$e well defined ases /ut the result annot

/e ao$plished /- a 2udiial deision alone. Theunonstitutionalit- of this additional inareration is itselfine;ora/le and $ust not /e treated as dispensa/lethrou!h a 2udiial deision.

EEE EEE EEE

B+%) 6n the li!ht of the sa$e# we are of the view that theratio laid down in #evender "a$ Singh hu$$ar (supra)is per incuriam. There is no dispute that in the sa$edeision this Court has aepted the ratio enuniated in

Triveniben (supra) (Constitution "enh) and also notedso$e other 2ud!$ents followin! the ratio laid down inthose ases that une;plained lon! dela- $a- /e one ofthe !rounds for o$$utation of sentene of death into lifei$prison$ent. There is no !ood reason to dis:ualif- allTADA ases as a lass fro$ relief on aount of dela- ine;eution of death sentene. >ah ase re:uiresonsideration on its own fats.

EEE EEE EEE

B5) Ta0in! !uidane fro$ the a/ove priniples and in theli!ht of the ratio enuniated in Triveniben (Supra), weare of the view that une;plained dela- is one of the!rounds for o$$utation of sentene of death into lifei$prison$ent and the said supervenin! iru$stane isapplia/le to all t-pes of ases inludin! the offenesunder TADA. The onl- aspet the Courts have to satisf- isthat the dela- $ust /e unreasona/le and une;plained orinordinate at the hands of the e;eutive. The ar!u$ent of=r. uthra# learned AS9 that a distintion an /e drawn

/etween 6PC and non@6PC offenes sine the nature of theoffene is a relevant fator is lia/le to /e re2eted at theoutset. 6n view of our onlusion# we are una/le to sharethe views e;pressed in #evender "a$ Singh hu$$ar(supra).

11) earned Attorne- 9eneral# ta0in! note of the onlusion

arrived at in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra) wherein this

Court held that the ratio laid down in #evender "a$ Singh

6


7/9Page 7

hu$$ar vs.State (%CT) of #e$hi (1) + SCC 14' isper

incuriam, fairl- ad$itted that appl-in! the said priniple as

enuniated inShatrughan Chauhan (supra)

# death

sentene awarded to Devender Pal Sin!h "hullar is lia/le to

/e o$$uted to life i$prison$ent. *e appreiate the

rationale stand ta0en /- learned Attorne- 9eneral and

aept the sa$e.

1) 6n addition# it is also /rou!ht to our notie /- letter dated

,..1%# whih was reeived /- the Re!istr- on

1..1% fro$ the 6nstitute of 8u$an "ehaviour and Allied

Sienes# that the aused Devender Pal Sin!h "hullar was

e;a$ined /- the Standin! =edial "oard on '..1% and

the "oard opined as under

B1.The patient has /een dia!nosed with SevereDepression with Ps-hoti features (Treat$ent Refrator-Depression) with 8-pertension with D-slipide$ia withu$/o@ervial Spond-losis with =ild Prostato$e!al-.

. 8e is urrentl- reeivin! Anti@Depressant# Anti@Ps-hoti# Anti@an;iet-# Anti@8-pertensives#

8-polipede$i# Anit@Convulsant (for Neuropathi pain) andAntaid dru!s in ade:uate doses alon! with supportiveps-hotherap- and ph-siotherap-.

. Patient has shown partial and inonsistent response tothe treat$ent with si!nifiant flutuations in the severit-of his linial ondition.

%.The treat$ent o$prisin! of various o$/inations ofphar$aolo!ial and non@phar$aolo!ial treat$entshave /rou!ht a/out partial and inonsistent i$prove$entin his linial ondition in the last three -ears of

7


8/9Page 8

hospitali


9/9Page 9

FFFFFFFFFF.FFFFFFFFFF3.(H.L. DATTU)

FFFFFFFFFF.FFFFFFFFFF3.(SUDHANSU J*OTI MU+HOPADHA*A)

N>* D>86G

=ARC8 1# 1%.

9

navneet kaur v. state of nct of delhi

Documents