IN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCES versus IN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCES

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 19-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
543
 IN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE
IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCES
(Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 235, 309 – Whether,
after recording conviction for a capital offence, under law, the court
is obligated to conduct a separate hearing on the issue of sentence
– Held: it is necessary to have clarity in the matter to ensure a
uniform approach on the question of granting real and meaningful
opportunity, as opposed to a formal hearing, to the accused/convict,
on the issue of sentence – Matter referred to a larger bench of five
Hon’ble Judges.
Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court
HELD : 1. There are two views, one view is that a separate
hearing on the question of sentence should be afforded to the
accused, after recording conviction. The court held that the
hearing should be intended to afford an opportunity to place
materials to show mitigating circumstances - and, for the
prosecution, aggravating circumstances and that “sufficient time
must be given to the accused… on the question of sentence”. Another
view is, that same-day sentencing does not necessarily fall foul of
Section 235(2) of the CrPC. The 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. [Paras
11 and 15][558-B-C; 560-E]
2. The common thread that runs through all these decisions
is 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. 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
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 543
543
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
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). [Para 20][563-C-D]
3. There exists a clear conflict of opinions by two sets of
three judge bench decisions on the subject. As notice, 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 Report. It is also a fact that in all cases where
imposition of capital punishment is a choice of sentence,
aggravating circumstances would always be on record, and would
be part of the prosecution’s evidence, leading to conviction,
whereas the accused can scarcely be expected to place mitigating
circumstances on the record, for the reason that the stage for
doing so is after conviction. This places the convict at a hopeless
disadvantage, tilting the scales heavily against him. This court is
of the opinion that it is necessary to have clarity in the matter to
ensure a uniform approach on the question of granting real and
meaningful opportunity, as opposed to a formal hearing, to the
accused/convict, on the issue of sentence. [Para 23][564-D-G]
Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277 : [1983]
(2) SCR 690 – followed.
X v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 7 SCC 1 : [2019]
6 SCR 1; Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC
5 : [1989] 2 SCR 498; Anguswamy v. State of Tamil
Nadu (1989) 3 SCC 33; Bachan Singh v. State of
Punjab [1983] 1 SCR 145; Bhagwani v. State of
Madhya Pradesh AIR 2022 SC 527; Dagdu v. State of
Maharashtra (1977) 3 SCC 68 : [1977] 3 SCR 636;
Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra (2020) 14 SCC 290
: [2019] 11 SCR 295; Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab
(1991) 4 SCC 341 : [1991] 2 SCR 256; Manoj
Suryavanshi v. State of Chattisgarh (2020) 4 SCC 451
: [2020] 4 SCR 1; Manoj Pratap Singh v. State of
Rajasthan 2022 SCC OnLine SC 768; Muniappan v.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
545
State of Tamil Nadu (1981) 3 SCC 11 : [1981]
3 SCR 270; Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam (2001)
5 SCC 714 : [2001] 3 SCR 669; Santa Singh v. State of
Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 190 : [1977] 1 SCR 229; Tarlok
Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 3 SCC 218 : [1977]
3 SCR 711 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1983] 1 SCR 145
ref

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