ACCUSED 'X' versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 12-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 24 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
ACCUSED ‘X’
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Review Petition (Criminal) No. 301 of 2008)
In
(Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2007)
APRIL 12, 2019
[N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :
ss. 235(2) and 465 – Pre-sentence hearing – Object and
purpose of – Whether pre-sentencing hearing, if conducted on the
date of conviction, is in contravention of s. 235(2) – Held: Object
of s. 235(2) is to provide an opportunity for accused to adduce
mitigating circumstances – As long a purpose of s. 235(2) is met,
inasmuch as the accused is afforded a real and effective opportunity
to plead his case in respect of sentencing, there is no bar on pre-
sentencing hearing taking place on the same day as of conviction –
Even assuming that a procedural irregularity is committed by trial
court to a certain extent on the question of hearing on sentence,
the violation can be remedial by appellate court – However, in view
of s.465 the appellate Court can reverse or alter order of competent
jurisdiction on account of any error or irregularity only when such
error/irregularity results in failure of justice – In the facts of
the present case it cannot be said that the procedure envisaged
u/s. 235(2) was not complied with.
Sentence / Sentencing
Imposition of sentence – Need to give reasons – Held: Trial
court is obliged to give reasons for imposition of sentence – Any
increase or decrease in the quantum of punishment than the usual
levels need to be reasoned – The principle is fortified by the statute
u/s. 235(2) Cr. P.C. as also by judicial interpretation – However,
any reasoning dependent on moral and personal opinion/notion of
a judge about an offence needs to be avoided.
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Sentencing discretion – Exercise of – Held: Power to exercise
discretion in giving punishment, should be exercised by Judges in a
principled manner – A strict fixed punishment approach in
sentencing cannot be accepted.
Death sentence – Post-conviction mental illness – Whether a
mitigating factor for converting a death sentence to life
imprisonment – Held:Post-conviction mental illness is based on
appreciation of punishment and right to dignity – The Constitution
embodies broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards,
humanity and decency against which penal measures have to be
evaluated – There is strong international consensus against the
execution of individuals with mental illness – Various Prison Rules
also recognise post-conviction mental illness as a relevant factor
for Government to consider under its clemency jurisdiction – In the
present case, since the mitigating factors were not present at the
time of commission of crime, this ground needs to be utilized only in
extreme cases of illness – There is no set disorders/disabilities for
evaluating ‘severe mental illness’ - However, a ‘test of severity’ can
be a guiding factor for recognizing those mental illnesses which
qualify for an exemption – Post-conviction severe mental illness
will be a mitigating factor that the appellate court, in appropriate
cases needs to consider while sentencing an accused to death penalty
– Assessment of such disability is to be conducted by a multi-
disciplinary team of qualified professionals – Burden to prove severe
mental illness is on the accused – In the present case assessment by
the Psychiatrist with regard to mental illness of the accused is without
any objective factor for such assessment and seems to be incomplete
– However, in the facts of the case, it is not appropriate to constitute
a panel for reassessment of the mental health of the accused – In
view of fact situation of the case, life imprisonment simplicitor would
be inadequate – Therefore, death sentence is commuted to
imprisonment for remainder of his life sans any right to remission –
Constitution of India – Arts. 20(1) and 21 – Mental Healthcare Act,
2017 – ss. 3 and 20(1) – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 84.
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017:
s.103 – Prisoners in jail – Cannot be ignored and left to rot
away – State is obliged to act as a parens patriae – The Act aspires
to provide mental health care to those who are in need, including
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
the prisoners – State is obliged to set up mental health establishment
in the medical wing of at least one prison in each State/Union
Territory – State directed to consider the case of the accused under
the appropriate provision

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.