[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

August 26




INDIA:

Death sentence can’t be imposed except in rarest of rare cases: SC----In one of 
the case before the Supreme Court bench, the petitioner-convict was given a 
death sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC by the trial court for killing a 
minor girl after raping her.



Death sentence cannot be imposed except in the rarest of rare cases. It is not 
just the crime which the Court is to take into consideration, but also the 
criminal, the state of his mind, his socio-economic background and so on. 
Awarding death sentence is an exception, and life imprisonment is the rule. 
Before imposing the extreme penalty of death sentence, the Court would have to 
satisfy itself that the death sentence is imperative, as otherwise, the convict 
would be a threat to society, and that there is no possibility of reform or 
rehabilitation of the convict, after giving latter an effective, meaningful, 
real opportunity of hearing on question of sentence, by producing materials.

In one of the case before the Supreme Court bench, the petitioner-convict was 
given a death sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC by the trial court for 
killing a minor girl after raping her. The conviction of the petitioner is 
based on circumstantial evidence and the alleged extra-judicial confession made 
by him to the police in the course of the investigation, on the basis of which 
certain recoveries were made. The trial court proceeded on the basis of the 
submission of the public prosecutor that the charges had been proved beyond 
reasonable doubt. The trial court found that the crime committed was barbarous. 
Even the HC upheld the death penalty.

When the matter came up for hearing before the Apex Court, the bench, after 
perusing the trial court order, said that there can be no doubt that rape and 
murder of a minor girl shocks the conscience, and is barbaric. There is, 
however, no evidence to support the finding that the murder was pre-meditated. 
The trial court did not make any attempt to elicit materials relevant to the 
imposition of death sentence. Moreover, the trial court has not considered 
whether the crime is rarest of rare crimes as mandated by the Supreme Court in 
Bachan Singh’s case. In deciding whether a case falls within the category of 
the rarest of rare, the brutality or the gruesome or heinous nature of the 
crime is not the sole criterion, but also the criminal, the state of his mind, 
his socio-economic background and so on. Before imposing death sentence, the 
court has to satisfy itself that the sentence is imperative, the bench noted.

It said that in the present case, the mental health of the petitioner-convict 
at the time of execution must be taken into consideration. The medical report 
says that the petitioner is not mentally sound. Therefore, it would not be 
appropriate to affirm death sentence awarded to the convict. Opportunity should 
have been given to him to bring on record mitigating circumstances for 
reduction of the sentence and a balance struck between the aggravating and the 
mitigating circumstance. Special reasons have to be recorded before imposing 
death sentence in rarest of rare cases as mandated under CrPC. Besides, there 
is no forensic evidence against the petitioner. There is also no material to 
establish that the petitioner was incapable of being reformed, the bench 
pointed out.

Citing the SC judgment in Lehna’s case and Shatrughan Chauhan’s case, the bench 
said that the court held that mental illness is one of the supervening 
circumstances in commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. There can 
be no doubt that the crime is abhorrent, but it is doubtful as to whether the 
crime committed by the petitioner can be termed as “rarest of the rare”, the 
bench observed.

The bench concluded that mental illness is a relevant factor which warrants 
commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. Even though life 
imprisonment means imprisonment for entire life, convicts are often granted 
reprieve /or remission of sentence after imprisonment of not less than 14 
years. “In this case, considering heinous, revolting, abhorrent and despicable 
nature of crime committed by petitioner, we feel that petitioner should undergo 
imprisonment for life, till his natural death and no remission of sentence be 
granted to him”, bench noted.

Bench disposed of the case by commuting the death sentence in this case to life 
imprisonment, till his natural death, without reprieve or remission.

(source: The New Indian Express)