Death Penalty Case: Five Judge Supreme Court Bench to Consider Norms Related to Mitigating Circumstances
The court also noted that in all cases where the imposition of capital punishment is a choice of the sentence, aggravating circumstances would always be on the record, and would be part of the prosecution's evidence, leading to a conviction.
New Delhi, September 19: The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench of five judges the issue related to framing of guidelines on potential 'mitigating circumstances' that should be taken into account while dealing with cases where death penalty is under consideration. A bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia issued an order in this regard.
The court observed that there was a difference of opinion and approach amongst various judgments, on whether, after recording a conviction for a capital offence, under law, the court is obligated to conduct a separate hearing on the issue of sentence. The court noted in the order that there exists a clear conflict of opinions between two sets of three-judge bench decisions on the subject.
"As noticed before, 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," the court said. Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain a Plea Seeking a Probe into Kashmiri Pandit Exodus.
The court also noted that in all cases where the imposition of capital punishment is a choice of the sentence, aggravating circumstances would always be on the record, and would be part of the prosecution's evidence, leading to a conviction. In contrast, 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," the court said. "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 the sentence," the court said.
The court was hearing a matter initiated by itself to consider the larger issue of considering the process to be followed by the courts in the country while deciding the award of the death sentence. The court took the suo moto on the issue to frame guidelines.
(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)