Commutation of Death and Life Imprisonment Sentences

Statutory Provisions for Commutation

The primary statutory provisions governing commutation of sentences by the appropriate government are found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

• Section 433 of CrPC, 1973: This section empowers the "appropriate government" to commute various sentences without the consent of the person sentenced.
  • Death Sentence: A sentence of death can be commuted for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
  • Life Imprisonment: A sentence of imprisonment for life can be commuted for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for a fine.
  • Other commutations include rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment or fine, and simple imprisonment to fine.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Sections 474 and 475 of the BNSS correspond to Section 433 of the CrPC. A notable change under BNSS Section 474 is that a death sentence can now be commuted *only* to a sentence of life imprisonment, restricting the government's previous discretion to commute it to "any other punishment." This aims to increase deterrence for heinous offenses.
• Section 433A of CrPC (and BNSS Section 475): This section places a restriction that if a person is sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence where death is also a possible punishment, or if a death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment, such person shall not be released from prison unless they have served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.

Constitutional Powers

It's important to note that the statutory powers under the CrPC/BNSS exist concurrently with the constitutional powers of clemency:

• Article 72: Empowers the President of India to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence, including those where the punishment is a death sentence.
• Article 161: Grants similar powers to the Governor of a State, though a Governor cannot pardon a death sentence (they can suspend, remit, or commute it).

Circumstances for Commutation

The 'appropriate government' (Central or State, depending on the nature of the offence and the law under which the conviction was made) exercises this power discretionarily. While the codes do not explicitly list grounds, judicial pronouncements and executive practice highlight several factors:

• Humanitarian Considerations: This includes factors such as the age of the convict (old age, infirmity), severe illness (physical or mental), pregnancy in the case of a female convict, or other compelling compassionate grounds.
• Delay in Execution: Inordinate and unreasonable delay in the disposal of mercy petitions or the execution of a death sentence has been recognized as a ground for commutation by the Supreme Court, as it amounts to psychological torture.
• Good Conduct and Rehabilitation Potential: A convict's exemplary conduct in prison and demonstrated potential for reform and rehabilitation can be a factor.
• Social and Economic Background: In some cases, the socio-economic background of the convict and the circumstances leading to the crime might be considered.
• Nature of the Crime and Proportionality: While the court has already decided the sentence, the executive may review if the original sentence appears disproportionate in light of unforeseen factors or developments.

Judicial Pronouncements

The Supreme Court has consistently held that while the executive's power of commutation is broad, it is not absolute and is subject to judicial review to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness.

• Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily or for political gains. It also clarified that the executive acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
• Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989): Reaffirmed that the President and Governor's clemency powers are constitutional, independent of the judiciary, but must be exercised based on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
• Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014): A landmark judgment where the Supreme Court commuted the death sentences of 15 prisoners, ruling that "undue, inordinate and unreasonable delay in execution of death sentence [amounts to] torture" and was a ground for commutation. The court also recognized mental illness as a factor warranting commutation of a death sentence.