[Death Penalty cases] Urgent need for mitigating circumstances to be considered at trial stage: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday commuted the death sentences of three murder convicts to life imprisonment for a minimum of 25 years after noting that courts must show restraint in balancing public opinion with facts of the case (Manoj and ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh)..A Bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi relied on the test laid out in Bachan Singh to stress that examining the mitigating circumstances of such cases must be carried out liberally and expansively even in brutal crimes. It held,"There is 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 Bench issued guidelines in this regard and stated that it has been held that public opinion towards a cruel crime is not an objective circumstance relating to the crime or the criminals..The top court was hearing appeals against a 2014 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which upheld a Sessions Court verdict that convicted the present appellants for murder and sentenced them to the death penalty.The three were convicted of murdering three women during the course of a robbery in Indore, in 2011.On finding that the capital punishment imposed was unwarranted and while commuting it to life imprisonment, the top court observed,"While there is no doubt that this case captured the attention and indignation of the society in Indore, and perhaps the state of Madhya Pradesh, as a cruel crime that raised alarm regarding safety within the community – it must be remembered that public opinion has categorically been held to be neither an objective circumstance relating to crime, nor the criminal, and the courts must exercise judicial restraint and play a balancing role.".The Court essentially pointed to the hiatus between the trial and their appeals being heard at the High Court to state that the conduct of the accused in custody should have been taken into account as a mitigating circumstance.Discussing a plethora of precedents and Law Commission reports over the years, the Bench expressed its anguish at the fact that the test in Bachan Singh was not being consistently applied."However, despite over four decades since Bachan Singh there has been little to no policy-driven change, towards formulating a scheme or system that elaborates how mitigating circumstances are to be collected, for the court’s consideration. Scarce information about the accused at the time of sentencing, severely disadvantages the process of considering mitigating circumstances. It is clarified that mere mention of these circumstances by counsel, serve no purpose – rather, they must be connected to the possibility of reformation and assist principled judicial reasoning (as required under S. 235(2) CrPC)."Good conduct on the part of the convicts while in prison along with psychiatric evaluations are necessary indicators for considering mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases, it was underscored. Noting the lack of information on the collection of mitigating circumstances the Bench noted,"The lack of forthcoming information has led to attempts by the courts, to look backwards – sometimes many years after the crime has been committed – to evaluate on the one hand, circumstances that could not have been paused in time, and on the other those which can be captured, but for which there exists no frame of reference from the past, for comparison. This inconsistency in some courts calling for reports, while others fail to – further contributes to our patchwork jurisprudence on capital sentencing, and in turn undermines the equality principle and due process protection...in favour of death row convicts."Stressing on the importance of possibility of reformation of all prisoners, the Bench noted that a concrete framework to measure and evaluate the same is currently missing."Unfortunately, this is mirrored by the failure to implement prison reforms of a meaningful kind, which has left the process of incarceration and prisons in general, to be a space of limited potential for systemic reformation. The goal of reformative punishment requires systems that actively enable reformation and rehabilitation, as a result of nuanced policy making"..The judgment accordingly outlined the following guidelines to be implemented uniformly in matters of conviction of offences that can invite a death sentence:There is an urgent need to ensure that mitigating circumstances are considered at the trial stage. The trial court must elicit information from the accused and the State, both. 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. This would 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 the evaluation would provide a baseline for the appellate courts to use for comparison, i.e., to evaluate the progress of the accused towards reformation, achieved during the incarceration period. The State, must in a time-bound manner, collect additional information pertaining to the accused on the following: a) Age b) Early family background (siblings, protection of parents, any history of violence or neglect) c) Present family background (surviving family members, whether married, has children, etc.) d) Type and level of education e) Socio-economic background (including conditions of poverty or deprivation, if any) f) Criminal antecedents (details of offence and whether convicted, sentence served, if any) 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. This information should mandatorily be available to the trial court, at the sentencing stage. The accused too, should be given the same opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal, towards establishing all mitigating circumstances. 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 (i.e., probation and welfare officer, superintendent of jail, etc.). 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 an 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. It was also emphasised that criminal courts can and must at all stages call for additional information towards mitigating circumstances. .Regarding the present appellants' prayer for a lenient sentence and their contention that the courts below denied the opportunity of them making a case for the same, the top court took note that all three had placed material on record as to their circumstances . An individualised approach towards their sentencing, as opposed to a collective one, was necessary, the Court held."Swayed by the brutality of the crime and “shock of the collective and judicial conscience”, the High Court affirmed imposition of the death penalty solely on the basis of the aggravating circumstances of the crime, with negligible consideration of mitigating circumstances of the criminal. This is in direct contravention of Bachan Singh."The apex court maintained that the crime was heinous, cruel and vicious beyond any stretch of imagination. However, in commuting their sentence, the Bench ruled that the option of life imprisonment was certainly not foreclosed in the matter. "The reports received from the Superintendent of Jail reflect that each of the three accused, have a record of overall good conduct in prison and display inclination to reform. It is evident that they have already, while in prison, taken steps towards bettering their lives and of those around them, which coupled with their young age unequivocally demonstrates that there is in fact, a probability of reform."On these grounds, the Court found that the death penalty awarded to the three accused - Manoj, Rahul and Neha - was unwarranted, and commuted their sentence to life imprisonment..Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash and Advocate Shri Singh appeared pro bono (free of charge) for the convicted-appellants.Additional Advocate General Swarupama Chaturvedi appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh..[Read judgment]