If Prosecution Proposes Death Sentence, It Must Produce Before Trial Court Information About Background Of Accused : Supreme Court

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court has held that in cases where the offences are so heinous that death sentence is warranted, the prosecution must produce before the trial court all materials which are relevant to assess the mitigating circumstances favouring the accused. The Court clarified that this exercise must be carried out even in cases where the accused might eventually not be imposed the death sentence.

In last year's decision in Manoj vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510, the Court had underscored the imperative to conduct evaluation of mitigating circumstances at the trial stage. Now, in the present decision(Vikas Chaudhary vs The State of Delhi), the Court has gone a step ahead to state that such exercise must be conducted even in cases which warrant death sentence, but which may not be imposed. This will in turn help higher courts to evaluate the mitigating circumstances available to the convict while considering fixed term sentences.

A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat ruled :

"it is held that wherever the prosecution is of the opinion that the crime an accused is convicted for, is so grave that death sentence is warranted, it should carry out the exercise of placing the materials, in terms of Manoj, for evaluation".

In other words, prosecution would have to inform the court, and present relevant materials (as elaborated in Manoj), in case the death sentence is proposed.

The bench added :

"In case this results in imposition of death sentence, at the stage of confirmation, the High Court would have the benefit of independent evaluation of these materials. On the other hand, if death sentence is not imposed, then, the High Court may still be in a position to evaluate, if the sentence is adequate, and wherever appropriate and just, impose a special or fixed term sentence, in the course of an appeal by the state or by the complainant/informant. Given the imperative need for such material to form a part of the court’s consideration, it has to be emphasized that in case the trial court has failed to carry out such exercise (for whatever reason), the High Court has to call for such material while considering an appeal filed by the state or complainant for enhancement of sentence (whether resulting in imposition of capital punishment, or a term sentence)".

 In Manoj, the Court directed that the state, must - for an offence carrying capital punishment - ,produce material before the Sessions Court disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused. The prosecution should also collect additional information relating to family background, education, socio-economic background of the accused. For more, read here.

Trial Courts cannot impose fixed term sentences

The Supreme Court also reiterated that the trial court has no jurisdiction to sentence the accused to life imprisonment for the remainder of their life, or life imprisonment without entitlement to remission for a fixed term, in serious crimes which carry the death penalty apart from life sentence as a sentencing option.

The court took note that the top court in Union of India vs Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., [2015] 14 SCR 613, has approved a special category of sentence for serious crimes where death sentence is substituted with life imprisonment for a fixed number of years- which may be longer than the minimum sentence specified in Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and may extend to considerably long periods, such as 30 years. However, Sriharan (2015) reserves the power to impose such special or fixed term sentences only with the High Courts and the Supreme Court, the court said.

The bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat was dealing with an appeal against the conviction and sentencing order passed by the trial court, where a fixed term sentence of 30 years, without remission, was imposed on the accused for the abduction and murder of the deceased. The same was upheld by the High Court in appeal.

The bench remarked that the top court, on three previous occasions, had faced a similar situation where the trial court had sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment for the remainder of their life, or without entitlement to remission for a fixed term of not less than 20 years. The court said that in view of the Apex Court’s decision in Sriharan (2015), the same was clearly beyond the scope of jurisdiction that the trial court is empowered with.

The accused, Vikas Chaudhary and Vikas Sidhu, were convicted for the commission of offence under Sections 302, 364A, 201, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and were sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life. Further, an additional condition was imposed on the accused that they would not be entitled to any parole, remission, or furlough, before completing 30 years of imprisonment. In the appeal filed by the accused, the Delhi High Court had affirmed their conviction for the offence as well as the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Challenging the conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court, the accused pleaded that it was outside the jurisdiction of the trial court, to provide a specific term of punishment or life imprisonment for the remainder of life, as an alternative to the death penalty.

They further argued that the mitigating circumstances in their favour, and the report of the probation officer were neither considered by the trial court, nor the High Court while upholding the sentence.

The court reckoned that the Supreme Court in Swamy Shraddananda vs State of Karnataka, [2008] 11 SCR 93, had evolved a special category of sentence for serious crimes where death sentence is substituted with life imprisonment for a fixed number of years. The Apex Court in Union of India vs Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors, [2015] 14 SCR 613 had approved the same.

Referring to its decision in Sriharan (2015), the court said, “It is thus clear that Sriharan (supra), approved an alternative third sentencing option in cases where the accused are convicted of serious and grave crimes which carried with it the option of capital sentence. Realising that a life sentence per se can lead to early release of accused upon their undergoing the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 433A, and highlighting that the asymmetry in state rules with respect to minimum incarceration in different kinds of life sentences, this court decided to retain to itself (and the High Courts) the option of imposing what Sriharan termed as “special” or “fixed term sentences”.”

The court added: “It is hence clear that the trial courts, are foreclosed from imposing such a modified or specific term sentence, or life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s life, as an alternative to death penalty. The court, when trying an offence punishable by death penalty or life imprisonment, has merely these two options.”

Thus, the bench remarked that whenever the state proposes and urges for imposition of death sentence, it has to, per force, provide material to facilitate the court to carry out the exercise of balancing the aggravating factors with the mitigating circumstances- the test propounded in Bachan Singh vs Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 684.

“The obligation to carry out this balancing interest is upon the courts imposing the sentence in the first instance, i.e., the trial courts; the prosecution (per Bachan Singh) is also under an obligation to show that the mitigating circumstances are absent27 especially that there are no chances of reformation of the accused,” said the court.

It added that the said exercise is mandated at the stage of conviction whenever a heinous capital crime is committed, since the court has no idea that the prosecution may urge for capital sentence. “When that stage occurs, and the prosecution seeks a capital sentence, the court has to carry out the exercise of conducting a review of aggravating circumstances (which are already on the record, being factors that lead to the conviction of the accused) and balancing the mitigating circumstances (which are not matters of the record and have to be adduced by the prosecution and the accused),” said the court.

Perusing the facts of the case, and the mitigating and aggravating factors involved, the court observed that a strong case was made out in support of the accused’s probability of reform and reintegration into the society. The bench thus partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence awarded to the accused to a minimum term of 20 years of actual imprisonment.

Case Title: Vikas Chaudhary vs The State of Delhi

Dated: 21.04.2023

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Krishan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Sunita Arora, Adv. Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv. Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Shivam Bedi, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Shailendra P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Shivhase, Adv.

Indian Penal Code, 1860- The Supreme Court has ruled that the trial court has no jurisdiction to sentence the accused to life imprisonment for the remainder of their life, or life imprisonment without entitlement to remission for a fixed term, in serious crimes which carry the death penalty apart from life sentence as a sentencing option-The court took note that the Apex Court in Union of India vs Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., [2015] 14 SCR 613, has approved a special category of sentence for serious crimes where death sentence is substituted with life imprisonment for a fixed number of years- which may be longer than the minimum sentence specified in Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and may extend to considerably long periods, such as 30 years. However, Sriharan (2015) reserves the power to impose such special or fixed term sentences only with the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Death Penalty- Mitigating circumstances- Wherever the prosecution is of the opinion that the crime an accused is convicted for, is so grave that death sentence is warranted, it should carry out the exercise of placing the materials, in terms of Manoj vs State of MP, for evaluation-  

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment