Supreme Court (SC) has recently referred the issues concerning the norms for imposing the Capital Sentence to a larger Bench. This decision comes as the court seeks to delve deeper into the complexities and implications of capital punishment.

What has the Court Said?

• The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has referred the issue to a five-judge bench based on the argument that the process of same-day sentencing is unfairly biased against the accused.
• The Bench pointed out that during the trial, the State has the opportunity to present aggravating circumstances against the accused.
• In contrast, the accused is only able to present evidence showing mitigating circumstances in their favor after their conviction.

What are the Issues?

• The issue of when and how the sentencing hearing should take place has led to conflicting judgments, particularly regarding whether it is essential to hold the hearing on a subsequent day and not on the day of conviction.
• The main concern is to provide a meaningful opportunity for those convicted of a capital offense to present mitigating factors and circumstances, allowing them to plead for a life term instead of a death sentence.
• The conflicting interpretations arise from the legal requirement that whenever a court records a conviction, it must conduct a separate hearing to determine the quantum of sentence.

What are the Legalities and Judgements?

1. Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandates that if the accused is convicted, the judge will hear the accused on the question of sentence and then pass the sentence.
2. This process gains significance when the conviction is for an offense that carries the punishment of either death or life imprisonment.
3. Section 354(3) of CrPC requires that in cases where death punishment or imprisonment for life is awarded, the judgment must state the reasons for the sentence.
4. In cases where the sentence is death, the judgment should provide “special reasons” justifying the awarding of the death penalty.
5. In the landmark 1980 case ‘Bachan Singh v State of Punjab’, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment but imposed the condition that it would be awarded only in the “rarest of the rare” cases.
6. The ruling emphasized that a separate sentencing hearing must be held, where the judge would be persuaded on why the death sentence need not be awarded.
7. This position was reiterated in subsequent court rulings, including the 1982 case ‘Mithu v State of Punjab’, in which a five-judge Bench struck down mandatory death sentences as they violated the right of the accused to be heard before sentencing.

What are the Views on Same-Day Sentencing?

1. While a separate hearing on sentencing is a common practice in all trials, many judges do not adjourn the case to a future date for this purpose.
2. Instead, as soon as the verdict of ‘guilty’ is pronounced, they ask counsel on both sides to argue on the sentencing immediately.
3. Some legal experts and advocates argue that such “same-day” sentencing is inadequate and violates the principles of natural justice.
4. The concern is that convicts do not get enough time to gather and present mitigating factors that could influence the severity of their sentence.
5. The Supreme Court has, in a series of judgments, advocated for the sentencing hearing to be conducted separately, on a future date after conviction.
6. However, in a contradictory stance, several judgments have upheld the practice of “same-day” sentencing, leading to inconsistency in the approach to this issue.

What is the likely Outcome?

1. The Constitution Bench is expected to establish comprehensive guidelines for arriving at sentencing decisions.
2. The Supreme Court may require trial courts to conduct a more in-depth evaluation of the accused before passing the sentence.
3. Courts may seek the expertise of psychologists and psychoanalytical experts to gain insights into the mental and emotional aspects of the accused.
4. The sentencing process may include a study of the accused’s childhood experiences, upbringing, mental health history in the family, and the likelihood of past traumatic experiences, along with consideration of other social and cultural factors.
5. As a result, trial courts will be better informed during the sentencing process, going beyond basic data such as educational and economic status.

What is Capital Punishment?

1. Capital punishment is the most severe form of punishment reserved for heinous and grievous crimes against humanity.
2. Offences under the Indian Penal Code for which offenders can be sentenced to death include murder (Section 302), dacoity with murder (Section 396), criminal conspiracy (Section 120B), waging war against the Government of India or attempting to do so (Section 121), abetment of mutiny (Section 132), and others.
3. The terms “death penalty” and “capital punishment” are sometimes used interchangeably, although imposition of the penalty does not always lead to execution. It can be commuted to life imprisonment or pardoned by the President under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution.

Way Forward

1. The upcoming hearings will resolve the legal debate surrounding fast-tracked hearings that lead to quick death sentences by trial courts.
2. The ruling could set a significant precedent for raising the standards for awarding the death penalty.
3. The focus of punishment in criminal law should not only be on eliminating the criminal but also on deterring future crimes and maintaining societal order.
4. Achieving the goals of an orderly society involves restoring peace and preventing future occurrences of crimes.
5. Balancing the competing rights of the criminal and the victim is essential in ensuring justice and preventing further harm to society.

Read Also: Religious Conversion