The demand for abolition of death penalty has been gathering voice, and the recent law commission report recommending abolition of death penalty, except in terror-related cases, emphasizes that need to change the laws of the country. At this point, it is relevant to recall a case where the Supreme Court and the President rejected the appeals of a death row convict, but, in a turn of fate, the Madras high court commuted the death sentence to life. And Gurusamy Naicker, descendant of Veerapandiya Kattabomman, was saved more than 30 years ago.
It was September 27, 1984. Suspense was mounting in the corridors of the Madras high court — the final verdict on a seven-year-old case was being pronounced. If the verdict was against the petitioner, India would lose the descendant of an early freedom fighter Veerapandia Kattabomman who was hanged by the British in 1799. However, if the verdict went in favour of the petitioner, the case of Gurusamy would be unique in the legal history of the country where hanging for any culpable offence was not uncommon.
The fight for the release of Gurusamy gained national attention after Vaiko (V Gopalasamy), DMK Rajya Sabha MP, took up his cause. The two met at Palayamkottai prison. Vaiko had been taken into custody under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act during the Emergency in 1977 and Gurusamy was convicted of murder and awaiting his execution. Gurusamy was sentenced to death by a sessions court in Tirunelveli in 1976 over a property dispute.
During a fight, Gurusamy apparently struck back in self-defence, causing the death of his uncle. Upon hearing all this, Vaiko was determined to save Gurusamy from the gallows and approached the then President of India, Sanjiva Reddy, with a memorandum signed by 38 members of Parliament. The President said he was emotionally moved but the mercy petition fell through and the date of execution was fixed as September 15, 1981.
Once again, on September 8, 1981, Vaiko submitted a memorandum signed by 50 MPs to the President, and was directed to submit it to the minister of state for home, Venkada Subbiah. Just five days ahead of Gurusamy’s end the execution was put off. The home department directed the Tamil Nadu government to verify the bonafides of Guruswamy’s direct lineage to Veerapandia Kattabomman. Execution was delayed for a year till the verification was complete and his case was recommended for commutation.
However, it was only a year’s reprieve, for President Zail Singh rejected the mercy plea on the ground that a criminal could not be excused for being a descendant of a freedom fighter. At this juncture, Justice Chinnappa Reddy of the Supreme Court pronounced that if the death row convict had served a long time in prison, the sentence can be commuted to life imprisonment.
On the strength of this judgment, another petition was submitted to the President on the plea that Gurusamy had been languishing in prison for five years. It was already June 14, 1984, and the date of execution was fixed on June 21. Petitions for stay of execution were filed both before the Supreme Court and the Madras high court.
The affidavit was supported by a goodwill certificate from all the 150 prisoners and the jailors of the Palayamkottai Central Prison. Amidst all this din and hustle, the only person who patiently and agonizingly waited for events to run their course was Gurusamy. His only wish was that if he was executed, his body should be handed over to Vaiko. The day of judgment arrived. Justice V Ramaswami and Justice David Annousamy pronounced: “If professional murderers can be excused from being hanged, it should only be just that the descendent of a freedom fighter too be saved from the gallows. I order the death sentence quashed and commute the
sentence to life imprisonment.”
The long drawn seven-year battle to save the life of a condemned prisoner did not go in vain. Gurusamy is now serving time as a convict warden and is expected to join his family shortly, the life sentence being reduced on account of his good conduct. Had Guruswamy been hanged, the judicial system would not have had this avant-garde verdict in its legal annals.
Loading...
