Khushi Bajpai
Published on: 18 August, 2022 at 18:14 IST
In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences, the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision regarding the formulation of guidelines on how and when mitigating circumstances are to be considered during trial in cases involving the imposition of the death penalty.
Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Sudhanshu Dhulia announced that they will either refer the case to a larger bench or draught new rules, which may overturn previous Supreme Court decisions.
The judgment by Justice U U Lalit said,
“We’ll have to wait and see if the judgements in these cases require the examination of mitigating factors to occur only after conviction or throughout the course of the trial. Delaying some events may be necessary so that sentencing can take place when it is appropriate. What role do we play at that point? I believe it should happen after all of the prosecution’s evidence has been presented. Alternatively, we’ll need to send this to a bigger bench”
The Supreme Court was deliberating over a suo motu case to explore how trial courts dealing with death sentences can obtain a thorough analysis regarding the defendant and the crime, particularly the mitigating circumstances, in order to determine whether or not a death sentence should be imposed.
The appeal by Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati (appellant), who was facing the death penalty imposed by the trial court and upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was heard in April, at which point the suo motu case was filed.
The probation officer is responsible for carrying out this work, but frequently, the probation officer’s analysis and report do not take into account the full picture of the accused and may be based on interviews that the probation officer may have conducted virtually at the conclusion of the trial.
Therefore, the Court stated that if someone from the defence side is given the opportunity to interview the accused right at the start of the trial, in addition to the probation officer, a thorough analysis can then be projected at a stage when the matter is considered from the standpoint of whether or not a death sentence should be imposed.
The Court had turned an application submitted by Project 39A of National Law University, Delhi, an organisation opposed to the death sentence, into a separate writ case in order to take these factors into account.
Additionally, it had given notice of the matter to the Member Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and Attorney General KK Venugopal.
It also designated Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, who was helped in the case by Advocate K Parameshwar, as Amicus Curiae.
When the case came up for hearing today, the attorney representing Attorney General KK Venugopal (who was unable to attend owing to health difficulties) highlighted the concern that every inmate could not afford to hire an attorney to argue their case of mitigating circumstances.
The bench said,
“Consequently, we notified the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). You must consult district courts and high courts to determine how many cases involving the death penalty would be included in that catchment. “
A larger bench would need to consider the question, according to Amicus Curiae Siddhartha Dave.
Project 39A’s Senior Attorney, Siddharth Aggarwal, argued that mitigating factors should only be brought up in front of the trial court after a conviction, not during the course of the trial to establish guilt or innocence.
“Only evidence supporting my guilt or innocence should be presented at trial. After such a conclusion, facts should only be followed by mitigating factors. The Constitution does not require same-day punishment.” He added.
The bench also expressed its opinion that a separate sentencing hearing must be held in cases where the death penalty is applicable, as the hearing came to a close.