Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFERRED CASE (CRIMINAL) NO. 1 OF 2012

V. Sriharan @ Murugan              .... Petitioner (s)

Versus

Union of India & Ors.  .... Respondent(s)

WITH  

TRANSFERRED CASE (CRIMINAL) NO. 2 OF 2012

T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan              .... Petitioner (s)

Versus

Union of India & Ors.  .... Respondent(s)

TRANSFERRED CASE (CRIMINAL) NO. 3 OF 2012

A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu               .... Petitioner (s)

Versus

Union of India & Ors.   ....  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) The above transferred cases which were borne out of  

the  writ  petitions  filed  by  V.  Sriharan  @  Murugan,  T.  

Suthendraraja @ Santhan and A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu in  

1

Page 2

the Madras High Court and which got transferred to this  

Court under Article 139A of the Constitution of India raise  

vital issues pertaining to violation of fundamental rights of  

death row convicts ensuing from inordinate delay caused  

at the hands of executive in deciding the mercy petitions  

filed under Article 72/161 of the Constitution. In all the writ  

petitions, the petitioners prayed for a writ of declaration  

declaring  that  the  execution  of  the  sentence  of  death,  

pursuant  to  the  letter  No.  F.No.14/1/1999-Judicial  Cell  

dated  12.08.2011  issued  by  the  Union  of  India,  is  

unconstitutional and thus sought for commutation of the  

sentence of death to imprisonment for life.

2) Akin  to  this  issue  was  decided  by  us  in  a  recent  

judgment viz.,  Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. vs.  Union  

of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55 of 2013  

etc.] decided on 21.01.2014 wherein this Court held that  

execution  of  sentence  of  death  on  the  accused  

notwithstanding  the  existence  of  supervening  

circumstances,  is  in  violation  of  Article  21  of  the  

Constitution.  One  of  the  supervening  circumstances  

sanctioned  by  this  Court  for  commutation  of  death  

2

Page 3

sentence into life imprisonment is the undue, inordinate  

and unreasonable delay in execution of death sentence as  

it  attributes  to  torture.  However,  this  Court,  cogently  

clarified in its verdict that the nature of delay i.e. whether  

it is undue or unreasonable must be appreciated based on  

facts of individual cases and no exhaustive guidelines can  

be  framed  in  this  regard.  The  relevant  portion  of  

Shatrughan Chauhan (supra), is as under:-

“42)  Accordingly,  if  there  is  undue,  unexplained  and  inordinate delay in execution due to pendency of  mercy  petitions  or  the  executive  as  well  as  the  constitutional  authorities  have  failed  to  take  note  of/consider  the  relevant aspects, this Court is well within its powers under  Article  32  to  hear  the  grievance  of  the  convict  and  commute  the  death  sentence  into  life  imprisonment  on  this ground alone however, only after satisfying that the  delay  was  not  caused  at  the  instance  of  the  accused  himself…”

   *** *** ***

“54) … Therefore,  in the light of the aforesaid elaborate  discussion,  we  are  of  the  cogent  view  that  undue,  inordinate and unreasonable delay in execution of death  sentence does certainly attribute to torture which indeed  is  in  violation  of  Article  21  and  thereby  entails  as  the  ground for commutation of sentence. However, the nature  of delay i.e. whether it is undue or unreasonable must be  appreciated based on the facts of individual cases and no  exhaustive guidelines can be framed in this regard.”

3) Accordingly,  the  case  at  hand  has  to  be  decided  

under the guidance of this judgment. The two principles  

stipulated  in  the  judgment  for  commutation  of  death  

3

Page 4

sentence into life imprisonment on the ground of delay as  

the supervening circumstance are  firstly, that  the delay  

occurred must be inordinate and secondly, that the delay  

must not be caused at the instance of the accused. Let us  

assess  the  facts  of  the  given  case  in  the  light  of  

established principles in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra).

Factual Background:

4) In  these petitions,  we are  concerned only with  the  

rejection of the mercy petitions of the petitioners by the  

President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution after  

the  confirmation  of  death  sentence  by  this  Court,  thus  

there is no need to traverse the factual details leading up  

to the imposition of death sentence.   

5) Initially,  the  mercy  petitions  were  filed  before  the  

Governor of Tamil Nadu on 17.10.1999 and the Governor,  

on 27.10.1999, rejected the same.  Subsequently, the said  

rejection was challenged before the Madras High Court in  

W.P. Nos. 17655-17658 of 1999 on the ground that  the  

mercy  petitions  were  decided  without  consulting  the  

Council  of  Ministers,  which  is  unsustainable  in  law.  

4

Page 5

Accordingly, by order dated 25.11.1999, the Madras High  

Court set aside the order of rejection of mercy petitions by  

the  Governor  and  directed  to  reconsider  the  mercy  

petitions afresh. Thereafter, on 25.04.2000, the Governor  

again rejected the mercy petitions.   

6) Consequently, the mercy petitions were forwarded to  

the  President  on  26.04.2000  for  consideration  under  

Article  72  of  the  Constitution.  The  President,  on  

12.08.2011, rejected these mercy petitions after a delay of  

more  than  11  years.   The  rejection  of  the  aforesaid  

petitions  was  communicated  to  the  petitioners  on  

25.08.2011.  Subsequently,  the  said  rejection  was  also  

challenged in W.P. Nos. 20287-20289 of 2011 before the  

Madras High Court on 29.08.2011. Later, by order dated  

01.05.2012, in Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos. 383-385 of  

2011 and 462-464 of 2011, this Court transferred all the  

three writ petitions to this Court in the interest of justice.  

Pursuant  to  the  aforesaid  order,  the  Madras  High  Court  

transmitted the original records to this Court, which have  

been registered as Transferred Case (Criminal) Nos. 1-3 of  

2012.   All  the  petitioners  are  currently  lodged  in  the  

5

Page 6

Central  Prison,  Vellore,  Tamil  Nadu  and  they  are  in  

incarceration since 1991, i.e., for more than two decades.  

7) Heard  Mr.  Ram Jethmalani,  learned  senior  counsel,  

Mr.  Yug  Mohit  Chaudhary,  learned  counsel  for  the  

petitioners and Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney  

General  and  Mr.  Sidharth  Luthra,  learned  Additional  

Solicitor General for the Union of India.

Contentions:

8) The  only  contention,  as  projected  by  Mr.  Ram  

Jethmalani,  learned  senior  counsel  and  Mr.  Yug  Mohit  

Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in  

view of inordinate delay of more than 11 years in disposal  

of mercy petitions, the sentence of death imposed upon  

the  petitioners  herein  is  liable  to  be  commuted  to  life  

imprisonment  as  it  is  violative  of  Article  21  of  the  

Constitution  in  addition  to  various  International  

Conventions,  Universal  Declarations,  to  which  India  is  a  

signatory.   In  support  of  their  contention,  they  heavily  

relied on Shatrughan Chauhan (supra).

9) On the other hand, Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned  

6

Page 7

Attorney General, assisted by Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned  

Additional  Solicitor  General,  submitted  that  the  delay  

caused  was  not  at  the  instance  of  the  head  of  the  

executive and is not unreasonable. They further submitted  

that  even  if  there  was  inordinate  delay  in  disposal  of  

mercy petitions in the light of the principles enunciated in  

Shatrughan  Chauhan  (supra) and  also  from  the  

information furnished by the petitioners in their affidavits  

filed before the High Court praying for commutation, the  

petitioners have not made out a case for passing similar  

order  of  commutation  as  ordered  in  Shatrughan  

Chauhan (supra).

Points for Consideration:

10) Firstly,  as  mentioned  earlier,  the  question  whether  

inordinate  delay  in  disposing  of  mercy  petitions  is  a  

supervening circumstance for commutation of sentence of  

death into life imprisonment is well settled in view of the  

recent  verdict  in  Shatrughan Chauhan (supra).  As  a  

result, the task before this Court is confined only to finding  

out whether the nature of delay caused is reasonable or  

inordinate in the light of the circumstances of the given  

7

Page 8

case and to verify whether the delay was caused at the  

instance of accused.  

11) The second point for consideration before this Court is  

whether  in  Shatrughan Chauhan (supra),  this  Court,  

laid down for actually proving the dehumanizing effect on  

the accused or mere unreasonable and inordinate delay on  

face of it is sufficient for commutation of death sentence to  

life.

Discussion:

12) After having carefully analyzed all the materials and  

rival  contentions,  now  let  us  venture  to  distinctively  

discuss  on  the  aforesaid  issues.  At  the  outset,  let  us  

examine  whether  the  delay  of  11  years  in  disposing  of  

mercy petitions is unreasonable and inordinate in the light  

of the facts of the given case.  

13) Following  the  rejection  of  mercy  petitions  of  the  

petitioners herein by the Governor on 25.04.2000, these  

petitions were forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs,  

Government of India on 04.05.2000. After an unreasonable  

delay of 5 years and 1 month, on 21.06.2005, the Ministry  

8

Page 9

of Home Affairs submitted the petitioners’ mercy petitions  

to  the  President  for  consideration.  Thereafter,  on  

23.02.2011,  the  Ministry  of  Home  Affairs  recalled  the  

petitioners’  mercy  petitions  from  the  office  of  the  

President.  Here also, there was a delay of 5 years and 8  

months. Ultimately, the President, on 12.08.2011, rejected  

these mercy petitions after a delay of more than 11 years.  

14) Across  the  bar,  learned  Attorney  General,  while  

explaining  the  delay  ensued  i.e.,  5  years  and  1  month  

submitted  that  shortly  after  the  receipt  of  the  mercy  

petitions in 2000, a note was prepared but thereafter the  

file was lying in the drawer of some officer of the Ministry  

of Home Affairs, and, hence, could not be processed. As  

regards delay of 5 years and 8 months, learned Attorney  

General  fairly  admitted  that  this  delay  couldn’t  be  

explained in any way.   

15) It is, therefore, indisputable that the delay ensued in  

the given petitions is inordinate and unreasonable and the  

same was not caused at the instance of the petitioners.  

Accordingly,  the  unreasonable  delay caused qualifies  as  

the  supervening  circumstance,  which  warrants  for  

9

Page 10

commutation of sentence of death into life imprisonment  

as  stipulated  in  Shatrughan  Chauhan  (supra), inter  

alia, the  judicial  decisions  in  Triveniben vs.  State  of  

Gujarat (1988)  4  SCC  574,  Sher  Singh and Ors. vs.  

State  of  Punjab (1983)  2  SCC  344  and  T.V.  

Vatheeswaran vs.  State of Tamil Nadu (1983) 2 SCC  

68.  

16) Exorbitant delay in disposal of mercy petition renders  

the  process  of  execution  of  death  sentence  arbitrary,  

whimsical  and  capricious  and,  therefore,  inexecutable.  

Furthermore, such imprisonment, occasioned by inordinate  

delay  in  disposal  of  mercy  petitions,  is  beyond  the  

sentence accorded by the court and to that extent is extra-

legal  and  excessive.   Therefore,  the  apex  constitutional  

authorities must exercise the power under Article 72/161  

within the bounds of constitutional discipline and should  

dispose  of  the  mercy  petitions  filed  before  them  in  an  

expeditious manner.

17) As regards the second contention, it was argued by  

learned Attorney General that the test laid down by this  

Court in cases involving delayed mercy petitions requires  

10

Page 11

the  petitioners  to  actively  demonstrate  the  sufferings  

occasioned by the delay, and that in the present case, the  

petitioners have been having a good time in prison and  

they have not suffered at all.  Hence, it is argued that the  

petitioners are not entitled to relief.   

18) Before we advert to respond the aforesaid contention,  

it  is relevant to comprehend the primary ground on the  

basis of which the relief was granted in cases of delayed  

disposal  of  the  mercy  petition  and  that  is,  such  delay  

violates  the  requirement  of  a  fair,  just  and  reasonable  

procedure.  Regardless and independent of the suffering it  

causes,  delay  makes  the  process  of  execution  of  death  

sentence  unfair,  unreasonable,  arbitrary  and  capricious  

and thereby, violates procedural due process guaranteed  

under Article 21 of the Constitution and the dehumanizing  

effect is presumed in such cases.  It is in this context, this  

Court,  in  past,  has  recognized  that  incarceration,  in  

addition to the reasonable time necessary for adjudication  

of mercy petitions and preparation for execution, flouts the  

due process guaranteed to the convict  under  Article  21  

which inheres in every prisoner till his last breath.   

11

Page 12

19) This Court has consistently held that prolonged delay  

in  execution  of  death  sentence,  by  itself,  gives  rise  to  

mental suffering and agony which renders the subsequent  

execution of  death  sentence inhuman and barbaric.   In  

Shatrughan Chauhan (supra), this Court held as under:

“33) This  is  not  the  first  time  when  the  question  of  such  a  nature  is  raised  before  this  Court.  In  Ediga  Anamma vs. State of A.P., 1974(4) SCC 443 Krishna  Iyer,  J.  spoke of  the  “brooding horror  of  haunting the  prisoner in the condemned cell for years”.  Chinnappa  Reddy,  J.  in Vatheeswaran (supra) said  that  prolonged  delay  in  execution  of  a  sentence  of  death  had  a  dehumanizing  effect  and  this  had  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.   Chinnappa  Reddy,  J.  quoted  the  Privy  Council’s  observation  in  a  case of  such an inordinate  delay  in  execution,  viz.,  “The  anguish  of  alternating   hope  and  despair  the  agony  of  uncertainty  and  the   consequences  of  such  suffering  on  the  mental,   emotional  and  physical  integrity  and  health  of  the   individual has to be seen.” …”

*** *** ***

“39) Keeping a convict in suspense while consideration  of his mercy petition by the President for many years is  certainly  an  agony  for  him/her.   It  creates  adverse  physical  conditions  and  psychological  stresses  on  the  convict  under  sentence  of  death.  Indisputably,  this  Court,  while considering the rejection of the clemency  petition  by  the  President,  under  Article  32  read  with  Article  21  of  the  Constitution,  cannot  excuse  the  agonizing delay caused to the convict only on the basis  of the gravity of the crime.”    

*** *** ***

“43) The procedure prescribed by law, which deprives  a person of  his life and liberty  must be just,  fair  and  reasonable  and  such  procedure  mandates  humane  conditions of detention preventive or punitive.  In this  

12

Page 13

line, although the petitioners were sentenced to death  based  on  the  procedure  established  by  law,  the  inexplicable  delay  on  account  of  executive  is  unexcusable. Since it is well established that Article 21  of  the  Constitution  does  not  end  with  the  pronouncement of sentence but extends to the stage of  execution  of  that  sentence,  as  already  asserted,  prolonged delay in execution of sentence of death has a  dehumanizing effect on the accused.  Delay caused by  circumstances beyond the prisoners’ control mandates  commutation  of  death  sentence.   In  fact,  in  Vatheeswaran (supra), particularly, in para 10, it was  elaborated  where  amongst  other  authorities,  the  minority view of Lords Scarman and Brightman in the  1972  Privy  Council  case  of  Noel  Noel  Riley vs.  Attorney  General,  (1982)  Crl.  Law  Review  679  by  quoting “sentence of  death  is  one thing,  sentence of   death  followed  by  lengthy  imprisonment  prior  to   execution is another”.”

20) Thus, the argument that the petitioners are under a  

legal obligation to produce evidence of their sufferings and  

harm caused to them on account  of prolonged delay is  

unknown  to  law  and  will  be  misinterpretation  of  

Shatrughan  Chauhan  (supra).  Such  a  prerequisite  

would  render  the  fundamental  rights  guaranteed  under  

Part III of the Constitution beyond the reach of death-row  

convicts and will make them nugatory and inaccessible for  

all intent and purposes. Besides, there is no requirement in  

Indian  law  as  well  as  in  international  judgments  for  a  

death-row convict to prove actual harm occasioned by the  

delay.   There  is  no  obligation  on  the  convict  to  

demonstrate specific ill effects of suffering and agony on  

13

Page 14

his mind and body as a prerequisite for commutation of  

sentence of death.  

21) In any case, the petitioners have extensively pleaded  

the nature of their sufferings both in the petitions as well  

as in the reminder letters which each of them repeatedly  

have sent to the President which remained unheeded.  As  

regards the argument  of learned Attorney General,  viz.,  

the  petitioners  were  enjoying  themselves  in  prison,  a  

perusal  of specific  averments in their  writ  petitions filed  

before the High Court shows a different picture.  All  the  

petitioners highlighted that the delay caused unendurable  

torture  to  them  and  they  repeatedly  requested  the  

authorities to forthwith decide their mercy petitions.

22) In Transferred Case (Crl.) No. 1 of 2012 (V. Sriharan  

@ Murugan), in Writ Petition No. 20287 of 2011 filed before  

the High Court, in para 5, the petitioner has expressed his  

grievance in the following manner:

“I  state  that  the  extraordinary  and  unjustified  delay  in  deciding my mercy petition is entirely caused by the office  of the Hon’ble President of India.  For each day after the  sentence of death was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme  Court,  and while  my mercy petition  was pending before  the  Hon’ble  President  of  India,  my  family  and  I  have  undergone a living hell not knowing whether I would live or  

14

Page 15

die, and whether I would live to see another day or draw  another breath, or whether that day and that breath would  be my last.  I state that I have been swinging between life  and death for these past many years confined in a single  cell.  I state that I have suffered enough and that it would  not  be  in  the  interests  of  justice  to  compound  this  suffering by executing me.  I submit that the interests of  justice  would  be  served  by  converting  the  sentence  of  death  to  one  of  life  imprisonment.   I  state  that  cases  where the delay has been less than half of what it is in the  present  case  have  been  held  by  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  and  this  Hon’ble  Court  to  be  unconscionable  and  excessive  and  in  breach  of  Article  21,  warranting  substitution of death sentence by a sentence of life.”

In paragraph 22, the petitioner has stated as under:

“I state that I have been in custody since 4.6.1991, i.e.  for more than 20 years.  I have been under sentence of  death since the judgment of the trial court on 28.1.1998,  i.e. for more than 13 years and 7 months.  I further state  that  after  the  rejection  of  my  review  petition  by  the  Supreme Court on 8.10.1999, i.e. for a period of about  11 years and 10 months, I have lived under the shadow  of the hangman’s noose.  During this period, I have been  kept in a single cell, with the threat of imminent death  hanging  over  my  head.  My  mercy  petition  was  filed  more  than  11  years  and  4  months  ago  (about  4100  days).   During  this  long  period,  I  have  suffered  excruciating mental agony and torture of a kind that is  difficult  to  imagine  or  conceptualize.   I  have  been  swinging between life and death, believing every waking  minute  to  be  my  last,  not  knowing  whether  I  will  be  spared or not, and when the hangman’s noose will close  around my neck.  Every person passing my prison cell is  imagined  to  be  the  harbinger  of  news  regarding  the  outcome  of  the  mercy  petition,  or  the  date  of  my  execution.  Such torment is a punishment far worse than  death.”

23) In the year 2005, the petitioner-Sriharan @ Murugan  

sent a representation to the President of India reminding  

the pendency of his mercy petition.  In that letter, apart  

from highlighting his pathetic position, he asserted that “it  

15

Page 16

has  been  5  years  since  I  had  sent  my  petition  

requesting Justice.  I live like a moving dead body  

with the rope tangling in front of my eyes always in  

solitary  confinement.   I  request  justice  but  not  

mercy.”

24) In another letter dated 17.06.2006, addressed to the  

President,  he  asserted  to  the  sufferings  of  his  family  

members in the following words:

“For  about  8 years,  I  have been serving  sentence as  death  sentence  convict.   So,  the  sufferings  of  my  parents,  brothers,  wife  and  daughter  can  not  be  described in words.   I  ask God daily why they should  suffer due to me.  No body knows how many times the  convicts who are sentenced to death like me die and  how many times they dream about their being hanged  and no body knows about this truth.  No one who loves  consciousness, humanity and truth do not fear death.  But with the aim of making sacrificial goat, after being  sentenced to death,  and justice is not done for  years  together  and  being  harassed  and  under  the  circumstances,  there  is  every  change  for  a  man  to  disintegrate.  When one’s life is unreasonably wasted,  no human being can lead life without fear or suffering.  This confusion and fear is very bad misery.  I have been  suffering this for many years.  I  request you to grant  reduction  of  punishment  and  render  justice  at  the  earliest.”

In the subsequent letter dated 10.03.2007, addressed to  

the President of India, the petitioner has stated:

“Sir,  16 years have passed since I  and my wife were  imprisoned.   The  female  child  born  to  us  in  jail  is  suffering without  security  and education as a nomad.  During  this  long  time,  the  suffering  undergone  and  

16

Page 17

undergoing now by our family members can not be said  in words.  Thinking of punishing me have punished my  entire  family.   So,  my life  in jail  has become a living  death.”

In the same way, he also made several subsequent letters  

to the President highlighting his pathetic position, torture,  

sufferings of his family, etc.

25) In  Transferred  Case  (Crl.)  No.  2  of  2012  (T.  

Suthendraja @ Santhan) in Writ Petition No. 20288 of 2011  

filed before the High Court and Transferred Case (Crl.) No.  

3 of 2012 (A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu) in Writ Petition No.  

20289  of  2011  filed  before  the  High  Court,  both  the  

petitioners/death convicts have expressed their grievance  

in  similar  terms  like  the  co-convict  Murugan.   These  

petitioners  also  sent  similar  letters  to  the  President  

highlighting  their  agony  in  the  prison  and  prayed  for  

earlier  disposal  of  their  mercy  petitions.   They  also  

highlighted sufferings on account of solitary confinement,  

mental agony, etc.   

26) Having perused all the averments specifically averred  

in  the  writ  petitions  as  well  as  the  copies  of  the  

communication addressed to the Ministry of Home Affairs  

and to  the  President  of  India  and also in  view of other  

17

Page 18

information/materials available in the affidavit filed before  

the High Court in the year 2011, we are unable to accept  

the views expressed by learned Attorney General on this  

point.  

Conclusion:

27) At  the outset,  we once again clarify that  the relief  

sought  for  under  these  kind  of  petitions  is  not  per  se  

review of  the  order  passed  under  Article  72/161  of  the  

Constitution on merits  but  on the ground of violation of  

fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution to  

all the citizens including the death row convicts.

28) The  clemency  procedure  under  Article  72/161  

provides a ray of hope to the condemned prisoners and his  

family members for commutation of death sentence into  

life  imprisonment  and,  therefore,  the  executive  should  

step  up  and  exercise  its  time-honored  tradition  of  

clemency power guaranteed in the Constitution one-way  

or the other within a reasonable time. Profuse deliberation  

on the nature of power under Article 72/161 has already  

been  said  in  Shatrughan  Chauhan  (supra) and  we  

18

Page 19

embrace the same in the given case as well.  

29) We are confident that the mercy petitions filed under  

Article 72/161 can be disposed of at a much faster pace  

than what is adopted now, if the due procedure prescribed  

by law is followed in verbatim. The fact that no time limit is  

prescribed to the  President/Governor  for  disposal  of  the  

mercy petition should compel the government to work in a  

more  systematized  manner  to  repose the  confidence of  

the people in the institution of democracy. Besides, it  is  

definitely not a pleasure for this Court to interfere in the  

constitutional  power  vested  under  Article  72/161  of  the  

Constitution  and,  therefore,  we  implore  upon  the  

government to render its advice to the President within a  

reasonable time so that the President is in a position to  

arrive at a decision at the earliest.   

30) Before we conclude, we would also like to stress on  

one  more  aspect.  We  have  learnt  that  the  Union  

Government,  considering the nature of the power under  

Article  72/161,  set  out  certain  criteria  in  the  form  of  

circular  for  deciding  the  mercy  petitions.  We  hereby  

recommend  that  in  view  of  the  recent  jurisprudential  

19

Page 20

development  with regard to delay in  execution, another  

criteria may be added to the existing yardsticks so as to  

require consideration of the delay that may have occurred  

in disposal of a mercy petition.  

31) In the light of the above discussion and observations,  

in the cases of V. Sriharan @ Murugan, T. Suthendraraja @  

Santhan and A.G. Perarivalan @ Arivu, we commute their  

death  sentence  into  imprisonment  for  life.  Life  

imprisonment  means  end  of  one’s  life,  subject  to  any  

remission granted by the appropriate Government under  

Section  432  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973  

which,  in  turn,  is  subject  to  the  procedural  checks  

mentioned in  the  said  provision and further  substantive  

check in Section 433-A of the Code. All the writ petitions  

are allowed on the above terms and the transferred cases  

are, accordingly, disposed of.

                                  ……….…………………………CJI.             (P. SATHASIVAM)   

                                                                  ……….……………………………J.               (RANJAN GOGOI)                    

20

Page 21

  ..….….……………………………J.                (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)   

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 18, 2014.

21