Hearing On Sentence In Death Penalty Cases Must Be Adjourned For Granting Time To Accused To Show Mitigating Factors: Jharkhand High Court

While expressing strong reservations over a POCSO court's hasty 7-days trial, the Jharkhand High Court asserted that in cases where a statute prescribes death penalty as a possible punishment, the court is obliged to postpone any further proceedings related to the sentencing, after clearly informing the accused of their right to present evidence regarding mitigating circumstances.The High Court annulled the death sentence imposed by the POCSO Court and ordered a fresh trial to be conducted by a different judge of competent jurisdiction.The division bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Anubha Rawat Choudhary opined, “Now the time has come that Miranda [Miranda v. Arizona : 384 US 436] which is applied in narcotics and psychopathic laws and preventive detention laws is made a part of the duty of the Court hearing on sentence. In our opinion, in every case where the statute provides death penalty the Court must adjourn “further” hearing on sentence after clearly informing the accused that he has a right to produce material(s) on mitigating circumstance(s). This only can be the manner in which the provisions under sub-section (2) to section 235 of hearing the prisoner on the question of sentence can effectively be achieved.”“In all other cases, where the convict does not intend to lead any evidence and is satisfied with an opportunity for an oral hearing the trial Judge shall pass a sentence on him according to law. However, the trial Judge should make an endorsement and record in the proceedings of the Court as well as in the order of sentence that the convict was informed about his right and offered an opportunity to lead further evidence, oral as well as documentary,” the bench added.The bench was hearing a Death Reference for confirmation of a sentence of death awarded to Mithu Rai, Ashok Rai and Pankaj Mohali. The above named prisoners had preferred a Criminal Appeal (DB) to challenge the judgment of conviction recorded against them under sections 366/34, 376-DB/34, 376-A/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the order of sentence passed thereon, separately on each count except under section 376-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The trio was accused of kidnapping informant's 6-year-old daughter, committing rape upon her and leaving her dead at informant's doorstep. Upon receiving DNA reports, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet and the trial Judge, after considering the evidence, convicted the accused on six counts, including abduction, sexual assault, murder, and concealing evidence.On March 3, 2020, the trial Judge pronounced a 72-page judgment of conviction, within 7 working days since taking cognizance of the offence, followed by a hearing on the point of sentence at 3:00 PM the same day and recording a 10-page order of sentence.Pursuant to this the Death Reference was instituted and after admission, the State of Jharkhand was directed to obtain a report of the Probation Officer and the Psychiatrist and Physiological Evaluation Report of the convicts from a trained Psychiatrist or a Professor of Physiology and such reports were placed on record.On June 16, 2023, the Juvenile Justice Board in Dumka was instructed by a court order to conduct an inquiry according to section 9(2) of the 2015 Act. Subsequently, on July 10, 2023, the Principal Magistrate of the J.J. Board in Dumka made a ruling stating that Ashok Rai and Pankaj Mohali were juveniles at the time of the incident.The Court emphasized that a comprehensive analysis of sections 15, 18, and 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 clarifies that a child above the age of 16 years, accused of a heinous offense, can be sentenced to life imprisonment if found to possess the mental and physical capacity to understand and commit the crime. However, the Court highlighted that the trial judge had hastily conducted the proceedings.The Court pointed out that prosecution's witnesses, including close associates of the victim, were examined, cross-examined, and discharged within a single day, raising questions about the judge's adherence to their statutory duties. Furthermore, the prosecution's application to present additional evidence under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was swiftly approved without any objection from the defense.The Court further pointed out that these additional witnesses testified on the same day, and crucial documents such as the inquest report, videography certificate, arrest memo, seizure list, transit remand, postmortem report, and DNA reports were submitted through their testimonies. Subsequently, six more prosecution witnesses were examined through another petition under section 311 CrPC, after which the prosecution concluded its evidence presentation, and on the same day, the accused was questioned under section 313 CrPC, and the case was adjourned for arguments.In light of the seriousness of the offense and the severity of ...

Hearing On Sentence In Death Penalty Cases Must Be Adjourned For Granting Time To Accused To Show Mitigating Factors: Jharkhand High Court

Bhavya Singh

Tags