Death Penalty Sentencing in India's Trial Courts: Confusion in the Apex Court Wreaks Havoc in Courts Below

Project 39A has released a report titled DeathPenalty Sentencing in Trial Courts: Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra(2000-2015) containing findings from a study of all capital cases decided by trial courts of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra between 2000 and 2015. Analysing 215 judgments (43 from Delhi, 82 from Madhya Pradesh, and 90 from Maharashtra), the report exposes the hollowness of sentencing hearings that are conducted. Combining empirical analysis and doctrinal critique, substantial parts of the report are also dedicated to demonstrating the normative and procedural gaps in death penalty sentencing framework that have been the legacy of the Bachan Singh judgment and the numerous inconsistencies in Supreme Court judgments in the 40 years thereafter. Contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in Bachan Singh (1980) which emphasised the relevance of mitigating factors in capital sentencing, trial courts heavily relied only on aggravating circumstances of the crime to decide the outcome. In 51% of the 215 trial court judgments, mitigating circumstances were not considered. Further, in complete defiance of the spirit of individualised justice envisaged in s.235(2) CrPC, 44% cases involved sentencing on the same day as conviction. In addition, the trials courts did not consider the default punishment of life imprisonment in 73% cases while deciding between life imprisonment and the death sentence. It would, however, be incorrect to attribute complete blame for a broken state of capital sentencing in trial courts exclusively to these courts themselves. The report also comments on the challenge in collating trial court judgments and records. Observing the lack of effective implementation of digitisation strategies, the report states that a large proportion of judgments had to be physically collected from records rooms across different High Court benches after due authorisation. Same day sentencing Section 235(2) of the CrPC provides for a bifurcated trial, where the conviction and sentencing are meant to be separate proceedings. In asking for and imposing the death sentence, Bachan Singh provides the framework for conducting sentencing hearings. However, the report notes that those requirements are barely ever met and a very significant indicator of that breakdown is the practice of same day sentencing. The abysmal absence of consideration of sentencing factors discussed below is worsened by the practice of same day sentencing. Even when sentencing hearings are not conducted on the same day, it was observed that barely enough time is given to prepare for meaningful sentencing hearings. The report finds that in 44% of the cases analysed across the three states, sentencing hearings took place on the same day as conviction. The crisis was most acute in Madhya Pradesh where same-day sentencing was observed in 76.9% of the cases. Maharashtra had sentencing on the same day in 34.4% of the cases, but 57% of the cases had sentencing on the same day or with just a 24-hour gap. Delhi fared better relatively with 53.4% of sentencing hearings taking place at least one week after the conviction. Non-consideration of mitigating factors The report documents significant concerns about the quality of sentencing hearings in the trial courts. The requirements of the law as laid down by a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh and its actual practice in the trial court seem to be at complete variance. The confusion and severe lack of clarity of the legal position as expressed through various Supreme Court judgments over the last 40 years seem to have had a devastating impact on sentencing hearings in the trial courts. Trial courts across the three states used a crime-centric approach to impose the death penalty, and dismissed mitigating circumstances without any meaningful consideration. Resultantly only aggravating factors were used to impose the death penalty, most of which centrered around brutality of the crime. For instance, in one of the cases from Madhya Pradesh, the trial court observed: "Can any mitigating circumstance be a reason for such a beastly act? Can such a person gain mercy and sympathy from society? Can such a person have repentance for his deeds and reform for the good? Should the court allow such a person to live a grand life after serving the punishment?" Although Bachan Singh required sentencing courts to give a 'liberal and expansive' interpretation to mitigating factors, trial courts across the three states imposed the death penalty without considering, and in some cases, even mentioning any mitigating circumstances. The Report draws a distinction between consideration and mention of mitigating factors, using the latter for those cases where courts did not mention even a single mitigating factor while imposing the death penalty, let alone considering and...

Death Penalty Sentencing in India's Trial Courts: Confusion in the Apex Court Wreaks Havoc in Courts Below

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Project 39A at National Law University, Delhi has released a study analysing trial court death penalty judgments from Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Delhi during the period 2000-2015

Tags