Death Penalty cases: Supreme Court reserves order on guidelines regarding mitigating circumstances

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order regarding framing guidelines on how and when mitigating circumstances are to be considered during trial in death penalty cases [In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences]..A Bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat, and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that it would either refer the issue to a larger Bench, or frame the guidelines itself, which may overturn some earlier Supreme Court verdicts. "We will have to see in such cases the consideration of mitigating circumstances has to be only after conviction or during trial as per judgments. Matters might have to be deferred so that sentencing can be given its due time. Where do we fit in that stage? In the fitness of things, I think it should be after all prosecution evidence is done being presented. Or we will have to send this to a larger Bench," Justice Lalit opined.The apex court was hearing a suo motu case to examine how trial courts dealing with death sentence can procure a comprehensive analysis about the accused and the crime, especially the mitigating circumstances so that it can decide whether death sentence needs to be imposed or not.The suo motu case was registered in April while hearing a plea by one Irfan@ Bhayu Mevati (appellant) challenging the death penalty imposed on him by the trial court and confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.The probation officer undertakes this task, but many a time, the analysis and the report by the probation officer does not consider the complete profile of the accused and may be dependent upon the interviews which the probation officer may have had almost at the fag end of the trial.Hence, the Court had opined that aside from the probation officer, if someone from the defence side is given the facility of interviewing the accused right at the beginning of the trial, a comprehensive analysis can then be projected at a stage when the matter is considered from the standpoint of whether death sentence be imposed or not.To consider these aspects, the Court had converted an application filed by anti-death penalty body, Project 39A of National Law University, Delhi into a separate writ petition.It had also issued notice to Attorney General KK Venugopal and the Member Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), in the matter.Further, it had appointed Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, assisted by Advocate K Parameshwar, as Amicus Curiae in the matter.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, counsel who was appearing on behalf of Attorney General KK Venugopal. (who could not be present in court due to health issues) raised the question of how every convict could not afford lawyers to present his or her case of mitigating circumstances. "That is why we issued notice to National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). Have to consult High Courts and district courts, [to see] how many such cases of capital punishment would fall into that catchment," the Bench said.Amicus Curiae, Siddhartha Dave said that the matter would have to be considered by a larger Bench. Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, appearing for Project 39A, said that mitigating circumstances should be placed before trial court only after conviction and not during trial to determine guilt or innocence. "Only those facts that indicate my guilt or innocence should be during trial. Mitigating circumstances should only follow facts after such determination. There is no constitutional obligation for same day sentencing," he said. As the hearing drew to a close the bench also opined that there has to be a segregated hearing on sentencing in case of death penalty convictions.It then proceeded to reserve its verdict..[Follow our coverage of today's hearing]