Is Same Day Sentencing In Death Penalty Cases Proper? Supreme Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench

The Supreme Court on Monday referred to a 5-judge bench the issue relating to hearing the accused before imposing the death penalty on him. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that there were conflicting judgments regarding the grant of hearing to an accused before imposing death sentence on him. The court noted that in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the court, in its majority judgment, upheld the constitutionality of the death sentence, on the condition that it could be imposed in the "rarest of rare" cases. The majority in Bachan Singh took note that convicts would be afforded a separate hearing, to urge why capital sentence ought not to be resorted to. The judgment noted the Law Commission's observation that courts should "give the party or parties concerned an opportunity of producing evidence or material relating to the various factors bearing on the question of sentence." Thus, the court underlined that the presence of 'valuable safeguards' was an important consideration to uphold the validity of death sentence, in the rarest of rare cases.The bench further opined that the importance of a separate hearing on the issue of mandatory imposition of death sentence was reiterated in several other judgements such as Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab. However, the court found that on a reading of these very judgments – i.e., Santa Singh, Muniappan, Malkiat Singh, etc., the court had arrived at a different conclusion - that same-day sentencing DID not necessarily fall foul of Section 235(2) of the CrPC. The bench noted–"This contrary line of cases are based on the premise that the court may adjourn for a separate hearing, but the absence of it would not in itself vitiate the sentence. In Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra, a three-judge bench of this court rejected the interpretation of Santa Singh as laying down that failure on the part of the court to hear a convicted accused, on the question of sentence, would necessitate remand to the trial court. Instead, it held that such an omission could be remedied by the higher court by affording a hearing to the accused on the question of sentence, provided the hearing was "real and effective" wherein the accused was permitted to "adduce before the court all the data which he desires to be adduced on the question of sentence"...Thus, it was held that while the accused facing the possibility of death sentence was not entitled to an adjournment, nothing barred the court from granting the same. Several decisions have since relied on Dagdu, and concluded that the action of the court sentencing an accused on the same day as conviction in itself would not vitiate the sentence."After referring to the judgements of the court on this issue, the bench noted that the common thread that ran through all decisions was the express acknowledgment that meaningful, real and effective hearing must be afforded to the accused, with the opportunity to adduce material relevant for the question of sentencing. It further added–"What is conspicuously absent, is consideration and contemplation about the time this may require. In cases where it was felt that real and effective hearing may not have been given (on account of the same day sentencing), this court was satisfied that the flaw had been remedied at the appellate (or review stage), by affording the accused a chance to adduce material, and thus fulfilling the mandate of Section 235(2). The question of what constitutes 'sufficient time' at the trial court stage, in this manner appears not to have been addressed in the light of the express holding in Bachan Singh. This, in the court's considered opinion, requires consideration and clarity."The court stated that the present suo moto petition was initiated noticing the lack of a uniform framework in regard of separate hearings in death penalty matters. It took into account the case of Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya, where the apprehensions relating to the absence of such a framework was recorded and the importance of a separate hearing and the necessity of background analysis of the accused, was highlighted. In this case, it was suggested that the social milieu, the age, educational levels, whether the convict had faced trauma earlier in life, family circumstances, psychological evaluation of a convict and post-conviction conduct, were relevant factors at the time of considering whether the death penalty ought to be imposed upon the accused. Accordingly, the court opined that–"There exists a clear conflict of opinions by two sets of three judge bench decisions on the subject. As noticed before, this court in Bachan Singh had taken into consideration the fairness afforded to a convict by a separate hearing, as an important safeguard to uphold imposition of death sentence in the rarest of rare cases, by relying upon the recommendations of the 48th Law Commission...

Is Same Day Sentencing In Death Penalty Cases Proper? Supreme Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

Is Same Day Sentencing In Death Penalty Cases Proper? Supreme Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers