“You want your sentence to be changed to hanging” – the Supreme Court asked Today (Sept 11) as Swamy Shraddananda, who is incarcerated for 30 years for killing his wife and has pleaded for release, said that the imprisonment till death awarded to him is far worse than the capital punishment. His wife was the grand-daughter of a former Dewan of the princely state of Mysore, sought the relief, saying he has been in “continuous incarceration” without any parole or remission and nothing adverse has been reported against him during his stay in jail.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, in a hearing on Wednesday, raised a provocative question:
“You want your sentence to be changed to hanging?”
This remark came as Swamy Shraddananda, an 84-year-old convict serving life imprisonment for the murder of his wife, sought release, arguing that imprisonment for life without parole was far worse than the death penalty.
Shraddananda, also known as Murali Manohar Mishra, has been incarcerated for 30 years for the murder of his wife, Shakereh, the granddaughter of a former Dewan of the princely state of Mysore. His plea for release was based on the grounds that he has been in “continuous incarceration” without parole or remission and that no adverse reports had been made against him during his time in jail.
The bench, led by Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices P.K. Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, dismissed Shraddananda’s writ petition seeking release but agreed to hear a separate review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s 2008 verdict, which had ruled that he would remain in prison for the rest of his life.
During the hearing, Shraddananda’s counsel cited the premature release of convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, arguing,
“I am 84 years old and I am in 30 years of continuous incarceration… It may be worse than the death sentence.”
He contended that such prolonged imprisonment amounted to torture and suggested that-
“even a death penalty could be better than this kind of life imprisonment.”
The bench responded sharply to the argument, retorting,
“You want this to be changed to hanging?”
Shraddananda’s lawyer acknowledged the harshness of the sentence, adding,
“Hanging could be a better situation for the convict as on date.”
However, when questioned by the court, the lawyer admitted,
“I have not spoken to him,”
-referring to his client.
The legal team argued that the sentence imposed on Shraddananda was not envisioned under the old Indian Penal Code and based its defense on various legal principles. Advocate Varun Thakur, also representing the convict, emphasized that Shraddananda’s conviction was based on a judicial confession.
The bench, however, questioned whether it should reopen the case, noting that Shraddananda’s conviction had been upheld by both the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court.
“No accused can have a right on conviction to ask for a death sentence. You can’t take your own life. Attempt itself is an offence. So you can’t say the court will have to impose [the death penalty]. The court will impose the appropriate sentence,”
-the bench clarified.
Shraddananda’s counsel also argued that the sentence blocked his right to apply for premature release under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench countered, stating,
“That [life imprisonment till rest of life] was done in order to save you from hanging.”
The lawyer responded,
“If it was a reprieve from capital punishment, it should not be worse than death.”
Referring to the fact that even convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case were granted parole, the lawyer raised concerns over the denial of the same rights to Shraddananda, claiming violations of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
Despite these arguments, the bench rejected the writ petition, observing that Shraddananda had previously withdrawn a similar petition, making a fresh one for the same relief untenable.
“We, therefore, find that a fresh writ petition for the very same relief would not be maintainable,”
-the bench ruled. However, it urged him to pursue his review petition, which remains pending.
In an unexpected turn during the hearing, Shraddananda’s counsel referenced a web series based on the incident, arguing,
“I had committed one crime. What about my right to be forgotten?”
In the review petition, Shraddananda’s lawyer highlighted his good behavior during his imprisonment, noting that he had won five awards for being the “best prisoner.” The lawyer questioned whether Shraddananda was still the same person who had committed the crime, remarking,
“In such a situation, the question is whether I am still the same person… as I was at the time of commission of the crime.”
The bench agreed to hear the review petition and requested responses from the state of Karnataka and other involved parties. The matter has been posted for hearing after four weeks.
Shraddananda’s wife, Shakereh, who was the granddaughter of Sir Mirza Ismail, the former Dewan of Mysore, disappeared suddenly in May 1991. In March 1994, after the Central Crime Branch of Bengaluru took over the investigation, Shraddananda confessed to the murder. Shakereh’s body was later exhumed, and Shraddananda was arrested.
A trial court convicted him and sentenced him to death in 2005. The Karnataka High Court upheld this sentence in September of the same year. However, when the matter reached the Supreme Court, a two-judge bench unanimously upheld his conviction but differed on the sentence.
One judge ruled that he should not be released from prison for the rest of his life, while the other favored the death penalty. The final decision was rendered by a three-judge bench on July 22, 2008, sentencing Shraddananda to life imprisonment without the possibility of release.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Death Sentence
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
