FOR THE RESPONDENT

Is the Writ Maintainable?

The writ petition filed by the human rights organization on behalf of Mr X is not maintainable.
Several grounds support the contention that the petition should be dismissed.

1. Laches and Delay: Firstly, the petition is plagued by laches and delay. The incident occurred
in 1990, and Mr X's conviction was confirmed by the High Court in 1994. Since then, the case
has been through several judicial stages, including the rejection of the Special Leave Petition
by the Supreme Court in 1996 and the dismissal of the mercy petition by the President. The
petitioners have shown no reason for the inordinate delay in bringing the matter before the
court.

2. Res Judicata: The principle of res judicata applies to the case as the matters concerning Mr
X's conviction and sentencing have already been decided upon and confirmed by the
competent courts. The issues raised in the current petition have either been decided upon
previously or could have been raised during the earlier stages of the trial. Therefore, re-
litigating these issues violates the principle of finality in litigation.

3. Bar of Review: The current petition seeks to re-examine the issues related to the conviction
and sentencing of Mr X, which were previously decided by competent courts. It is imperative
to note that the scope of review is limited and cannot be used as a means to challenge
settled matters unless there is a manifest error on the face of the record, which has not been
demonstrated by the petitioners.

4. Abuse of Process: This petition appears to be an abuse of the process of law, aiming to delay
the execution of the sentence rather than to seek justice. The repeated rejection of appeals
and petitions at various stages of the judicial process, including the Supreme Court and the
President, signifies that the case has been exhaustively examined and the sentence
confirmed after due process of law.

5. Substantive Issues: Furthermore, the contentions raised in the petition about the violation
of constitutional provisions lack merit and fail to establish any substantial ground for the
writ to be entertained. The courts have already considered these aspects during the earlier
stages of the case, and there is no new evidence or compelling argument presented in the
current petition that would necessitate a re-evaluation of the case.

In light of the above arguments, it is evident that the writ petition filed on behalf of Mr X is not
maintainable and should be dismissed. The execution should proceed as per the black warrant
issued by the appropriate court on 01.01.2013.

Will the Exception of Intoxication provided in I.P.C. be applicable in the instant case?

The Exception of Intoxication provided in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) may not be applicable in the
instant case. The Exception of Intoxication, under Section 85 of the IPC, states that an intoxicated
person cannot be held fully accountable for his actions if he has become intoxicated against his will
or without his knowledge. However, this Exception does not absolve an individual from the
responsibility of an offense if the person was aware that the intoxication could have this effect and
still chose to indulge in the substance voluntarily.
In the case described, Mr X's intoxication was self-induced and voluntary. The facts indicate that he
was well aware of his actions during the time of the murders. He was intoxicated with liquor that he
himself consumed deliberately and then proceeded to engage in a violent altercation with his wife,
leading to her gruesome murder, as well as the murder of their two innocent children. The fact that
he was intoxicated cannot be used as a defense since it was self-induced and did not occur without
his knowledge or will.

Moreover, the extreme nature of the crime, which involved the premeditated killing of three
individuals, including two minors, cannot be justified or excused by the claim of intoxication alone.
His actions were not merely a consequence of temporary impairment but an outcome of a series of
conscious decisions made in a state of intoxication.

Considering the gravity of the offense and the absence of any indication that the intoxication was
involuntary, the Exception of Intoxication under the IPC is unlikely to be applicable in this case.
Therefore, it would not serve as a defense for the criminal acts committed by Mr X.

Was the High Court justified in confirming the Death Sentence?

The High Court's confirmation of the death sentence for Mr X was justified considering the
circumstances and gravity of the crime committed. Several factors support the High Court's decision:

1. Aggravating Circumstances: The High Court took into account the aggravating circumstances
of the case. Mr X, who was already serving a life sentence for the murder of his first wife,
committed a second heinous crime involving the deliberate and brutal killing of his second
wife and their two children. The act of taking innocent lives, particularly those of young
children, demonstrates an extreme level of cruelty and depravity, justifying the severity of
the sentence.

2. Lack of Remorse and Repeat Offense: Mr X's lack of remorse and the fact that he committed
a similar heinous crime previously indicate a pattern of violent behavior. The High Court
considered these factors while confirming the death sentence, emphasizing the need for a
stringent punishment to deter repeat offenses and protect society from such individuals.

3. Public Interest and Justice: Confirming the death sentence was necessary to uphold the
principles of justice and protect the interests of the public. Mr X's actions not only violated
the sanctity of human life but also created a sense of fear and insecurity within the
community. The High Court's decision aimed to send a strong message that such egregious
acts will be met with the most severe consequences under the law, thereby serving the
interests of justice and deterring potential offenders.

4. Opinion of the Judges: The High Court's decision was not arbitrary but the culmination of a
comprehensive review and discussion among the judges. The third judge, who was
consulted due to the split decision among the initial judges, concurred with the decision to
uphold the death sentence, indicating that a unanimous opinion was reached after thorough
consideration of the facts and legal provisions applicable to the case.

In light of these factors, it can be concluded that the High Court was justified in confirming the death
sentence for Mr X. The severity of the crime, its impact on society, Mr X's history of violence, and the
need for justice collectively support the decision of the High Court.
Is Mr. X innocent?

Based on the information provided, it is not evident that Mr. X is innocent. The details of the case,
including his prior conviction for the murder of his first wife, along with the subsequent crimes
committed against his second wife and their two children, paint a clear picture of his culpability in
the series of heinous offenses.

1. Admission of Guilt: Mr. X reportedly confessed to the murders in police custody. While his
subsequent refusal to make a statement before the jurisdictional magistrate could be seen
as an attempt to retract his confession, his initial admission points towards his involvement
in the crimes.

2. Witness Testimonies: The testimonies of the neighbors who rushed in and discovered Mr. X
attempting to hang himself further substantiate his culpability. The circumstances
surrounding the crime, including the statements of the witnesses, provide compelling
evidence of Mr. X's active participation in the brutal murders of his family members.

3. Previous Conviction: Mr. X's history of violence, as evidenced by his earlier conviction for
the murder of his first wife, suggests a pattern of criminal behavior, making it more likely
that he could have committed the subsequent murders.

Considering the weight of the evidence and the various elements pointing towards his guilt, it is
reasonable to conclude that Mr. X is not innocent. The facts of the case, including his confession and
prior criminal history, strongly indicate his involvement in the murders of his wife and children.

CASE LAWS

1. For the issue of the writ petition not being maintainable due to laches and delay, the case
law of "Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248" can be referred to.

2. Concerning the applicability of the Exception of Intoxication in the IPC, the case of "State of
U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC 552" can be considered, which discusses the
circumstances under which the defense of intoxication can be invoked.

3. Regarding the justification of the High Court in confirming the death sentence, the case law
of "Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684" can be referenced. This case deals
with the principles governing the award of the death penalty in India.

4. To address the question of Mr. X's innocence, the case of "Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1994) 3 SCC 569" can be examined, as it deals with the standard of proof required to
establish guilt in criminal cases.

These case laws provide significant precedents in the respective areas of law and can be referred to
for a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles involved in the case described.