M A I N   N E W S

HC stays execution of Sonepat rape convict Dharam Pal
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 6
Dharam Pal has escaped the gallows, at least for the time being. Four days after the President rejected his mercy petition filed way back in 1999 in a murder case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today stayed his execution.

One of the grounds taken by Dharam Pal in his petition filed before the high court was that the Supreme Court was already “seized of the matter”. The development is significant as Dharam Pal’s case has two aspects to it: the “mercy petition” and other proceedings before the Supreme Court on the legal issue of execution of convicts on death row who have been in jail for several years.

The rejection of a mercy petition by the President paves the way for the execution of a convict on death row. But, it is not a direction to the jail authorities to execute the sentence. The proceedings before the court are independent of the President’s decision on mercy petitions; and it’s for the courts to see whether the decision to hang the convict is judicious.

In Dharam Pal’s case, the mercy petition has been rejected. But it is yet to be seen by the court whether condemned prisoners behind bars should be hanged, even after long delay -- an issue that has been raised by militant Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar before the apex court.

Taking up Dharam Pal’s petition for conversion of the death sentence into life imprisonment, the Division Bench of Justice AK Mittal and Justice GS Sandhawalia also issued notice of motion for April 10.

The directions came just about six years after Dharam Pal was sentenced to death. A rape convict, he had later murdered the victim and four of her family while out on parole in 1993. The petition was filed in the high court this morning and was fixed for hearing almost immediately, keeping in view the urgency involved in the mater.

Dharam Pal’s counsel told the Court that till the morning of April 5, he was detained in Rohtak Jail, but in the afternoon he was shifted to Ambala Jail “where preparations were being made for executing his death sentence on Saturday afternoon or Sunday”.

Drawing a parallel between Dharam Pal and Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar’s case, his counsel Navkiran Singh elaborated that the apex court was “seized of the matter pertaining to all the death sentence convicts whose mercy petitions were pending with the President”.

Referring to Bhullar’s case, Navkiran Singh contended that his argument before the Supreme Court was that he has earned a right to get the sentence converted into life imprisonment, due to delay in execution of death penalty. In an attempt to substantiate his contentions, Bhullar was relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench in the case of Triveni Behan.

Navkiran added: “Along with the petition, several other petitions have been tagged and the matter has been finally heard by the Supreme Court on April 19, 2012. The judgment stood reserved.”

He also referred to a public interest litigation “Shamik Narain and others versus the Union of India”, in which the Supreme Court had ordered the continuation of interim stay on the death sentence awarded to four aides of sandalwood smuggler Veerapan. The case, he added, stood adjourned for six weeks to enable the “other Bench” to deliver judgment in pending matters.

Court’s role

• The rejection of a mercy petition by the President paves the way for the execution of a convict on death row, but it is not a direction to jail authorities to execute the sentence
• The proceedings before the court are independent of the President’s decision and it’s for the courts to see whether the decision to hang the convict is judicious
• In Dharam Pal’s case, it is yet to be seen by the court whether condemned prisoners behind bars should be hanged, even after long delay.