Supreme Court rules death penalty confirmed by it can be challenged via Article 32 petition

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the reconsideration of death penalty imposed on a man convicted for the rape and murder of a 4-year-old girl [Vasanta Sampat Dupare v Union Of India And Anr].

The Court allowed the petition filed by the convict and set aside its own order of May 3, 2017 which had upheld the death penalty imposed on Vasanta Sampta Dupare and said a fresh hearing will be conducted to decide his punishment.

Pertinently, the order today was passed on an Article 32 petition filed by Dupare challenging the earlier top court's verdict.

The Court in its verdict said that in death penalty cases, the Court's verdict can be reopened through Article 32 petitions when mandatory guidelines on imposing death sentence have not been followed.

The penalty in the present case would now be decided in conformity with the Supreme Court's decision in Manoj v State of MP, which mandated detailed consideration of mitigating circumstances before sentencing.

"The sentence awarded by this Court on 3rd May is set aside and the matter is remitted to this Court for a fresh hearing on sentence alone to conducted in conformity with Manoj Supra. The Registry is directed to place the matter before CJI for assignment to an appropriate bench," the Court ordered.

The order was passed by a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta.

The Article 32 petition was filed by Dupare seeking the application of the 2022 Manoj judgment and to consider mitigating factors before condemning him to death.

While delivering the judgement today, the Supreme Court held that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers it to reopen matters at the sentencing stage in cases of capital punishment where its mandatory guidelines for detailed consideration of mitigating circumstances is not followed.

However, the Court cautioned that the special scope of Article 32 should not become a routine for reopening concluded matters.

"Reopening will be reserved for only those cases where there is breach of new procedural safeguards, as if breaches are so serious that if left uncorrected they would undermine the accused's basic rights to life," the Court said.

[Read Live Coverage]