Summarize the following court judgment. iminal Appeal No. 137 of 1970. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 6	 1970 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1964. O. P. Rana	 for the appellant. section P. Mitra and Sukumar Basu	 for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri	 C.J. In this case special leave was limited to the question of sentence only The relevant facts for determining this point are as follows : The appellant	 Vivian Rodrick	 was tried by the High Court of Calcutta	 in exercise of its original jurisdiction	 having been committed to stand his trial by the Presidency Magistrate as early as July 31	 1963. The substance of the charges against the appellant were as follows : 547 (i) that on January 13	 1963 the appellant was a member of an unlawful assembly guilty of rioting	 being armed with deadly weapons and as such punishable under section 148	 I.P.C.; (ii)that on January 13	 1963 the appellant committed the murder of one Vincent D 'Rozaric and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302	 I.P.C.; and (iii)that on January 13	 1963 the appellant was in possession of explosive substances for unlawful object and thereby committed an offence under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Four other persons	 Stanley Rodrick	 Ranjit Mandal	 Simon Das and Ranjit Biswas were also tried jointly with the appellant and 	convicted under section 302 read with section 149	 and also under section 148	 I.P.C. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against the appellant and on September 4	 1964 the Presiding Judge convicted the appellant under section 302	 I.P.C.	 and sentenced him to death. At the trial the appellant was also convicted for offences under section 148	 I.P.C.	 and section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act	 and sentenced to	 rigorous imprisonment for two years and three years respectively. The terms of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The appellant filed a petition of appeal under section 411A	 Cr. P.C.	 on September 7	 1964	 challenging his conviction and the sentences imposed on him. The High Court	 by its judgment dated September 19	 1967 in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1964	 confirmed the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant. In considering the question of sentence the High Court observed that "the murder was a premeditated and cold blooded one. There was not the slightest provocation from the side of the deceased. This is undoubtedly a fit case for capital punishment. No question of showing any leniency on the ground of tenderness of age arises as the appellant is now aged about 35 years. " It was urged before the High Court that the sentence of death should be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for life on account of the long delay that had taken place in hearing the appeal. Although the High Court regretted the delay and the consequent mental suffering undergone by the condemned prisoner	 it felt that the "delay in executing the death sentence was not by itself a sufficient ground for which the court should exercise its jurisdiction to commute the death sentence to one of imprisonment for life. " The appellant sought leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment of the High Court on October 21	 1967	 and the same 548 was refused on January 8	 1968. Having obtained special leave	 the appellant filed an appeal to this Court (Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 1968). By its judgment dated April 30	 1969	 this Court set aside the the judgment and order of the High Court	 dated September 19	 1967	 and remanded the appeal to the High Court for fresh disposal and hearing in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this Court 's judgment. This Court in its judgment in Cr. No. 190 of 1968 observed	 regarding the four other co accused	 as follows "Though the conviction was for an offence under section 302 read with section 149	 I.P.C.	 curiously they were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment	 and none of them challenged their conviction in appeals. " On remand the appeal was again dismissed by the High Court on February 6	 1970. Chakrabarti	 J.	 with Whom Amaresh Chandra Roy	 J.	 agreed	 again considered the question of Sentence and held that although there had been a delay of more than five years in executing the death sentence that was not by its	 If sufficient ground for commuting the death sentence. The High Court referred to Nawab Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh(") and Piare Dusadh vs King EMperor(2). As the High Court did not find any extenuating circumstances whatsoever that 'would .justify its taking a lenient view in the matter	 it left to the State Government to take a decision as to whether it should	 on account of inordinate delay in executing the sentence	 exercise its powers under section 402	 Cr. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the matter should not have been left to the State Government. In Nawab Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh(")	 which has been referred to by the High Court in its judgment dated February 6	 1970	 it is observed "It is true that in proper cases an inordinate delay in the execution of the death sentence may be regarded as a ground for commuting it	 but we desire to point out that this is no rule of law and is a matter primarily for consideration of the local Government. If the Court has to exercise a discretion in such matter	 the other facts of such case would have to be taken into consideration. In the case before us	 we find that the murder was a cruel and deliberate one and there was no extenuatin circumstance whatsoever which would justify using ordering a commutation of the death sentence. " (1) A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 278. (2) 549 It seems to us that the extremely excessive delay in the disposal of the case of the appellant would by itself be sufficient for imposing a lesser sentence of imprisonment for life under section 302. Section 302	 I.P.C.	 prescribes two alternate sentences	 namely	 death sentence or imprisonment for life	 and when there has been inordinate delay in the disposal of the appeal by the High Court it seems to us that it is a relevant factor for the High Court to take into consideration for imposing the lesser sentence. In this particular case	 as pointed out above	 the appellant was committed to trial by the Presidency Magistrate as early as July	 31	 1963	 and he was convicted by the Trial Judge on September 4	 1964. It is now January 1971	 and the appellant has been ' for more than six years under the fear of sentence of death. This must have caused him unimaginable mental agony. In our opinion it would be inhuman to make him suffer till the Government decides the matter on a mercy petition. We consider that this is now a fit case for awarding the sentence of imprisonment for life. Accordingly we accept the appeal	 set aside the order of the High Court awarding death sentence and award a sentence of imprisonment for life. The sentences under section 148	 I.P.C.	 and section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under section 302	 I.P.C.	 shall run concurrently. V.P.S. Sentence modified.

The accused was committed to trial in July 1963 and was convicted and sentenced to death on September 4	 1964. The appeal to the High Court under section 411A	 Cr. P.C.	 was finally dismissed on February 6	 1970. The High Court left it to the State Government whether it should reduce the sentence on account of inordinate delay. In appeal to this Court on the question of sentence	 HELD : Section 302	 I.P.C.	 prescribes two alternate sentences	 namely	 death sentence or imprisonment for life. When there has been inordinate delay in the disposal of the appeal by the High Court	 it is a relevant factor for the High Court to take into consideration for imposing the lesser sentence. [549 A B] In the present case	 the appellant has been for 6 years under the fear of sentence of death	 which must have caused him unimaginable mental agony. In view of the excessive delay it is a fit case for awarding the lesser sentence instead of leaving it to the Government to decide the matter on a mercy petition. [549 B D] Nawab Singh vs State of U.P.	 A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 278	 referred to.