Double jeopardy and did not attract Art.13

The court while dilating upon the notion of variation of sentence by Appellate Court observed that variation of sentence of a convict could not be termed as double jeopardy and did not attract Art.13 (a) of the Constitution, which could only be applied, if the convict was exposed to a new trial.
   Further opining that delay in carrying out death sentence would not be a mitigating factor to reduce death sentence to imprisonment for life. The delay caused by the executive in executing death sentence of convict is not a ground to invoke the principle of expectancy of life to reduce his death sentence to imprisonment for life.

PLD 2015 S.C. 50