Capital punishment exemplifies the most extreme mode of punishment, exclusively designated for the most abhorrent and atrocious acts against mankind. In accordance with the Indian Penal Code, there exist distinct offenses, such as murder, dacoity with murder, criminal conspiracy, waging war against the Government of India or attempting to do so, abetment of mutiny, and others, which render offenders eligible to receive the death penalty. It is noteworthy that although the term death penalty is often interchangeably used with capital punishment, it should be acknowledged that the implementation of this penalty doesn’t always culminate in execution. In certain instances, it can be commuted to life imprisonment or granted clemency by the President in accordance with Article 72 of the Indian Constitution.
This prevailing practice in trials involves conducting a separate hearing on sentencing. However, it has been observed that the majority of judges do not adjourn the case for this purpose and instead ask both sides to present their arguments on sentencing immediately after announcing a guilty verdict. There is a perspective that this “same-day” sentencing is inadequate and violates natural justice since it does not give convicts enough time to gather mitigating factors. The Supreme Court, through a series of judgements, has expressed the opinion that the sentencing hearing should be conducted separately at a future date after the conviction. Interestingly, despite this stance, there have been contradictory judgments that support the practice of “same-day” sentencing.
According to Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc), if the accused is proven guilty, the judge will offer the accused an opportunity to express their thoughts on the matter of sentencing before the sentence is passed. This process holds significant importance, especially in cases where the conviction leads to either the death penalty or life imprisonment. As stated in Section 354(3), in instances involving the death penalty or life imprisonment, the judgment must include the rationale behind awarding the sentence. In the specific case of the death penalty, the judgment must provide “special reasons” for reaching such a decision. In the 1980 case of ‘Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab’, the Supreme Court validated the constitutionality of capital punishment, but stressed that it should only be imposed in extremely rare cases. Furthermore, the court emphasized the requirement for a separate hearing for sentencing, during which the judge can be convinced as to why the death penalty should not be imposed.
The Constitution Bench possesses the authority to establish comprehensive guidelines pertaining to the procedure of reaching sentencing decisions. The Supreme Court has the capacity to determine that the trial court acquire a more profound understanding of the accused prior to pronouncing the sentence. In order to achieve this, the courts may solicit the expertise of psychologists and psychoanalytical specialists. It may become obligatory for an examination to be conducted on the accused’s childhood experiences, upbringing, mental health history within the family, possibility of past traumatic experiences, and other social and cultural factors, all of which should be taken into account during the sentencing process. Consequently, trial courts will possess significantly more informed perspectives than their current state, as they will consider not only basic data such as educational and economic status, but also other relevant aspects.
Submitted by : Jagriti Tiwari, A first year intern at Legal Vidhya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
