LexVASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2136 : 2025 INSC 1043 Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 371 of 2023) 25 August 2025 [Vikram Nath,* Sanjay Karol* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Writ petition filed u/Art.32 challenging the continuing validity of the sentence of death against the petitioner, having been affirmed on appeal, declined in review, and followed by the rejection of mercy petitions and seeks its reconsideration in the light of guidelines laid down in the case of Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh; and whether Art.32 authorises this Court to reopen a capital sentencing exercise that has otherwise attained finality, solely to cure the procedural lapse the petitioner identifies. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.32 – Power of the court to revisit a sentence that has attained finality – Petitioner convicted u/ss.363, 367, 376(2)(f), 302 and 201 IPC for committing rape and murder of four year old girl and awarded death sentence – Death sentence attained finality upto this Court – Petitioner exhausted all judicial remedies, including review and mercy petitions – Writ petition challenging the continuing validity of the sentence of death affirmed against him, and sought its reconsideration in the light of subsequent legislative and judicial developments-guidelines laid down in the case of Manoj v. State of M.P. whereby this Court mandated the calling of reports, the content whereof has to be duly considered in arriving at a just and proper sentence: Held: [per Vikram Nath, J.] (for himself and Sandeep Mehta, J) Petitioner’s request for a new sentencing hearing which is compliant to Manoj’s case falls squarely within Art.32 – Relief sought does not disturb the conviction or reopen evidentiary findings but merely insists that the ultimate penalty be imposed, if at all, through the procedural safeguards now recognised as integral to a fair * Author [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2137 Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India & Ors. and individualised sentence – Granting this remedy is thus, a legitimate, and indeed compelling exercise of the Court’s plenary power u/Art.32 to secure the effective enforcement of fundamental rights – Contemporary Indian society no longer conceives criminal punishment purely in retributive terms – It also measures the quantum of a sentence by its capacity to preserve the possibility of human reform – Goal of reformation, repeatedly affirmed in our jurisprudence, presupposes that the legal system will not foreclose the prospect of moral regeneration unless every procedural assurance of accuracy and fairness has first been scrupulously observed – Art.32 is the bedrock of constitutional remedies, but its exceptional scope cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters – Reopening will be reserved only for those cases where there is a clear, specific breach of the new procedural safeguards as these breaches are so serious that, if left uncorrected, they would undermine the accused person’s basic rights to life, dignity and fair process – Finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner is left untouched – Sentence of death affirmed by this Court set aside – Matter remitted to this Court for a fresh hearing on sentence alone, to be conducted in conformity with the directions in Manoj’s case – Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for assignment to an appropriate Bench. [Paras 26, 27, 32-35] Held: [per Sanjay Karol, J.] (Concurring): In Manoj’s case all that has been done is that a streamlined and time-bound process has been laid down, to be necessarily followed by the Courts below, which hitherto had not been done despite postulation in Bachan Singh’s case – If the law once declared is not followed and the same causes a demonstrable detriment to a person, or a convict, such person will have a legitimate grievance which the Courts would be then required to remedy – Law declared by the Constitutional Courts applies retrospectively – Ex-consequenti, the benefit of Manoj’s case applies to the petitioner retrospectively and the denial of such benefit, which may eventually have the effect of saving him from the hangman’s noose, if it is indeed found that his socio-economic and psychological background as also other mitigating factors as may be procured, did play a sufficient role in the petitioner committing the hein
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.