The Apex court has thus, talked of the practical guidelines to ensure that the mitigating circumstances of then accused are properly considered .
The Court in it finding says that it is only at the appellate stage in most of the cases, that the information relating to the mitigating circumstances are collected which only relate to the post-conviction circumstances.
The Court spoke about the absence of well documented mitigating circumstances at trial level can aggravates circumstances lead to imposing the death penalty, on the basis of an incomplete test.
A bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M Trivedi said that there seems to be no “concrete framework” to measure and evaluate the possibility of reformation.
Justice Bhat stated that the wrong approach by the trial courts contribute to a “patchwork jurisprudence on capital sentencing”, and in turn “undermines the equality principle and due process protection”.
The bench has issued some”practical guidelines to collect mitigating circumstances after due consideration:
1. At the trial stage only, should the mitigating circumstances be considered.
2. Court must elicit information from the accused and the State both.
3. A document or material should be produced by the state that discloses the psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.
4. It should also be ensured that the additional information relating to family background, education, socio-economic background of the accused is collected by the state.
The State, should collect certain information pertaining to the accused like
a) Age
b) The family matters like siblings, parents, protection by parents, the condition of family(abusive),any history of violence
c) Current family background about surviving family members, marital status and kids.
d) Type and level of education
e) Socio-economic background (including conditions of poverty or deprivation, if any)
f) Criminal antecedents(past records of any criminal activity)
g) Income and the kind of employment (whether none, or temporary or permanent etc);
h) Other factors such as history of unstable social behaviour, or mental or psychological ailment(s), alienation of the individual (with reasons, if any) etc.
Source: indialegallivve.com, Staff, May 22, 2022
State must disclose psychiatric, psychological evaluation of accused in offence carrying capital punishment, says SC
The court said that conducting this form of psychiatric and psychological evaluation close on the heels of the commission of the offence, will provide a baseline for the appellate courts to use for comparison, to evaluate the progress of the accused towards reformation, achieved during the incarceration period.
A bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi issued various guidelines to decide on imposing capital punishment upon the accused.
There is an urgent need to ensure that mitigating circumstances are considered at the trial stage, to avoid slipping into a retributive response to the brutality of the crime, as is noticeably the situation in a majority of cases reaching the appellate stage, the court remarked.
The court held that the trial court must elicit information from the accused and the state.
“The state, must – for an offence carrying capital punishment – at the appropriate stage, produce material which is preferably collected beforehand before the Sessions Court disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused,” the top court said.
It is also said that this will help establish proximity (in terms of timeline), to the accused person’s frame of mind (or mental illness, if any) at the time of committing the crime and offer guidance on mitigating factors.
Besides this, the top court also recommended state, in a time-bound manner, collect additional information pertaining to the accused, which includes age, early and present family background, type and level of education, socioeconomic background, Criminal antecedents, Income and the kind of employment and Other factors such as the history of unstable social behaviour, or mental or psychological ailments.
This information should mandatorily be available to the trial court, at the sentencing stage and the accused too should be given the same opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal, towards establishing all mitigating circumstances, the court said.
Lastly, information regarding the accused’s jail conduct and behaviour, work done (if any), activities the accused has involved themselves in, and other related details should be called for in the form of a report from the relevant jail authorities (that is, probation and welfare officer, superintendent of jail, etc.), the court said.
“If the appeal is heard after a long hiatus from the trial court’s conviction, or High Court’s confirmation, as the case may be – a fresh report (rather than the one used by the previous court) from the jail authorities is recommended, for a more exact and complete understanding of the contemporaneous progress made by the accused, in the time elapsed. The jail authorities must also include a fresh psychiatric and psychological report which will further evidence the reformative progress, and reveal post-conviction mental illness if any,” the top court said.
“The goal of reformative punishment requires systems that actively enable reformation and rehabilitation, as a result of nuanced policymaking. As a small step to correct these skewed results and facilitate a better evaluation of whether there is a possibility for the accused to be reformed (beyond vague references to conduct, family background, etc.), this court deems it necessary to frame practical guidelines for the courts to adopt and implement, till the legislature and executive, formulate a coherent framework through legislation,” the top court said.
It also said that these guidelines may also offer guidance or ideas, that such a legislative framework could benefit from, systematically collect and evaluate information on mitigating circumstances.
The top court guidelines came while commuting the death sentence of 3 accused, to life imprisonment for a minimum term of 25 years.
It commuted the sentence taking note of the young age of the accused at the time of the incident, lack of criminal antecedents, and reports received from the Superintendent of Jail which reflect that each of the 3 accused, has a record of overall good conduct in prison and display inclination to reform.
The court was hearing 3 appeals preferred by 3 accused persons, who were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) imposed with the death penalty by the judgment and orders of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. This was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore.
The appellants Manoj, Rahul alias Govind and Neha Verma, were convicted of offences punishable under Section 302 IPC (3 counts) for committing the murder, during the course of the robbery, of 3 persons on June 19 2011. All 3 appellants were sentenced to capital punishment with a fine of Rs 1000 on each count.
Source: theprint.in, Staff, May 22, 2022
🚩 | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com.
 |  |
Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted." -- Oscar Wilde
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted." -- Oscar Wilde