In a significant decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution must present to the trial court all information necessary to evaluate the mitigating circumstances that favour the accused in cases where the crimes are so heinous that the death penalty is appropriate. The Court made it clear that this procedure must be done even in situations where the accused may not ultimately receive the death penalty.
The Court stressed the necessity of conducting an appraisal of mitigating circumstances at the trial stage in its ruling in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 (SC) 510 from last year.
In the most recent ruling (Vikas Chaudhary v. The State of Delhi), the Court has taken it a step further by stating that such an exercise must be carried out even in circumstances where the death penalty is warranted but cannot be imposed. Higher courts will then be better able to weigh the convict’s mitigating circumstances when deciding on fixed term sentencing as a result of this.
“It is held that wherever the prosecution is of the opinion that the crime an accused is convicted for is so grave that death sentence is warranted, it should carry out the exercise of placing the materials, in terms of Manoj, for evaluation,” a bench made up of Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat declared.
In other words, if the death penalty is suggested, the prosecution would need to tell the court and produce pertinent evidence (as explained in Manoj).
The bench continued, “If this results in the imposition of a death sentence, the High Court would benefit from an independent review of these materials at the stage of confirmation. If the death penalty is not applied, however, the High Court may still be able to determine whether the punishment is suitable and, where necessary and just, impose a special or fixed-term sentence during an appeal by the state or by the complainant/informant.
It must be emphasised that the High Court must request such material when reviewing an appeal submitted by the state or complainant for enhancement of sentence (whether resulting in the imposition of a term sentence or the imposition of the death penalty), in the event that the trial court has failed to carry out such an exercise (for whatever reason).
Trial Courts cannot inflict penalties with set terms. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that in serious crimes that carry the death penalty in addition to life sentences as a sentencing option, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to sentence the accused to life imprisonment for the rest of their lives or life imprisonment without the right to remission for a fixed term.
The Supreme Court and the High Courts alone have the authority to issue such extraordinary or fixed term penalties, according to Sriharan (2015), the court said.
An appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, wherein the accused was given a fixed term sentence of 30 years without remission for the kidnapping and murder of the dead, was being heard by the bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat. The High Court upheld the same on an appeal.
The bench noted that the top court had previously dealt with a situation where the trial court had sentenced the accused to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the rest of their lives or to a fixed period of not less than 20 years. The trial court’s authority to hear the case had plainly been exceeded, according to the court, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sriharan (2015).
The accused, Vikas Chaudhary and Vikas Sidhu, were found guilty of the crime and sentenced to life in prison for the rest of their natural lives under Sections 302, 364A, 201, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The accused were also subject to the additional stipulation that they would not be eligible for any parole, remission, or furlough before serving a total of 30 years in jail. The Delhi High Court upheld both the accused’s conviction for the crime and the trial court’s punishment in response to their appeal.
The accused argued that the trial court lacked the authority to impose a specific term of punishment or life imprisonment for the rest of one’s life as an alternative to the death penalty when contesting the conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court.
They further claimed that neither the trial court nor the High Court took into account the favourable mitigating circumstances in their favour or the probation officer’s report when sustaining the sentence.
As a result, the bench made the observation that whenever the state suggests and pushes for the imposition of the death penalty, it must by law provide information to enable the court to carry out the exercise of balancing the aggravating factors with the mitigating circumstances—the test outlined in Bachan Singh v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
SUBMITTED BY NEHA A. PARDESHI/4TH Year BLS LLB/TRCL
