Bissu Mahgoo vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 12 February 1954

Coram: Bhagwati, J.

In this case, the Supreme Court recorded that special leave to appeal had been granted to the appellant, but the leave was limited solely to the question of the sentence imposed. The appellant was represented by counsel who explained the procedural history before the Court. The learned Sessions Judge had originally sentenced the appellant to transportation for life. After that judgment, the State did not file any revision; instead, the complainant initiated a revision proceeding before the High Court. The High Court, exercising its jurisdiction, altered the original sentence and replaced transportation for life with the death penalty. The High Court rendered this revised judgment on 16 April 1951. Following that decision, the appellant filed an application on 15 May 1951 seeking leave to appeal to this Court. The High Court, for reasons not specified, failed to dispose of the appellant’s application until 13 March 1953, causing a delay of approximately one year and ten months. On the basis of these facts, counsel urged that the death sentence should be commuted back to transportation for life, emphasizing the irregularity of the revision process and the prolonged pendency of the appeal application.

The Court examined the first ground raised by counsel and concluded that it could not interfere with the High Court’s decision. The Court observed that, irrespective of whether the State or the complainant had moved the revision, the High Court possessed the competence to consider the question of sentence. Moreover, the High Court acted within its statutory authority when it enhanced the sentence from life transportation to death, and therefore the appellate Court could not set aside that exercise of power. Turning to the second ground, the Court expressed surprise at the extensive delay in disposing of the appellant’s application for leave to appeal. The Court stressed that when a capital sentence hangs over an accused, procedural requests must be dealt with expeditiously so that the accused does not endure unnecessary anxiety. The Court noted that regardless of any backlog in the High Court, no justification existed for a delay approaching two years in a matter of such gravity. Nevertheless, the Court held that the delay, while regrettable, did not constitute a sufficient ground to interfere with the death sentence already imposed by the High Court.

Finally, the Court expressed the view that both matters raised by counsel—namely, the origin of the revision and the inordinate delay—could be relevant considerations for the Central Government when the appellant submits a petition for commutation of the death sentence. After weighing the arguments, the Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, leaving the death sentence as pronounced by the High Court to remain in force.