Capital punishment, often known as the death penalty, represents the most extreme form of punishment. This punishment is reserved for the most heinous crimes committed against humanity. Certain offenses under the Indian Penal Code can result in a death sentence, including murder, dacoity with murder, criminal conspiracy, waging war against the Government of India, abetting mutiny, and others. Sometimes, the term ‘death penalty’ is used interchangeably with capital punishment. However, the imposition of this penalty does not necessarily lead to execution. Instead, it can be commuted into life imprisonment, or pardoned by the President under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court Reference on Capital Punishment
Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) referred the issues related to the guidelines for imposing capital punishment to a larger Bench. The current referral by a three-judge bench to a five-judge bench was sparked by an argument that same-day sentencing gravely disadvantages the accused. The Supreme Court noted that while the State has constant opportunities to present aggravating evidence against the accused during a trial, the defendant can only present mitigating circumstances in their favor post-conviction.
Controversial Sentencing Practices
There is an ongoing conflict over when and how a sentencing hearing should take place, particularly whether it is necessary to postpone the hearing until after the day of conviction. The main issue stems from providing a fair opportunity for those found guilty of a capital offense to present mitigating factors. These elements allow the accused to argue for reduced sentencing, such as life imprisonment instead of capital punishment.
Legal Perspective on Judgement and Sentencing
Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) stipulates that if the accused is convicted, the judge must conduct a separate hearing on sentencing. This procedure is particularly significant for offenses that warrant either the death penalty or life imprisonment. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the necessity of separate sentencing hearings in several rulings, with an emphasis on the accused’s right to be heard before sentencing.
Views on Same-Day Sentencing
Despite the norm of separate sentencing hearings, many judges do not postpone cases for this stage. Immediately following a guilty verdict, they invite counsel on both sides to commence sentencing arguments. Critics argue that same-day sentencing, while convenient, is inadequate and violates natural justice principles as convicts typically lack sufficient time to gather mitigating factors.
Prospective Outcome of the Reference
The Constitution Bench may propose comprehensive guidelines for sentencing decisions. The Supreme Court might mandate getting to know the accused better before passing a sentence, potentially enlisting psychologists and other specialists. The court may even mandate considerations such as the accused’s upbringing, family mental health history, and social and cultural factors — data that would provide a holistic view of the convict, allowing for more informed sentencing decisions.
Looking Forward: Eliminating Crime, Not Criminals
Punishment in criminal law should aim to achieve an orderly society by balancing criminals’ rights with victims’ rights. The ongoing debate surrounding the legality of fast-tracked death sentences awarded by trial courts could be settled through these hearings. The ruling could signify a further elevation of the bar for awarding the death penalty. This decision could emphasize the need, not only to eliminate criminals, but also to eradicate crime, thereby ensuring peace and preventing future crime occurrences.
