By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to deliver on Monday its verdict on a suo motu plea on framing of guidelines on how and when potential mitigating circumstances be considered by courts during trial in cases which entail the death penalty as the maximum punishment.
A death sentence is irreversible and every opportunity should be given to the accused for consideration of mitigating circumstances so that the court concludes that capital punishment is not warranted, a bench headed by Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit had observed while reserving its verdict on August 17.
The top court, on its own, had taken note of the issue saying that there was an urgent need to ensure that the mitigating circumstances for conviction of offences that carry the possibility of a death sentence are considered at the trial stage.
The case was titled as “Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences”.
It had said for an offence carrying capital punishment, the state must, at an appropriate stage, produce material that is preferably collected beforehand, before the Sessions Court disclosing the psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.
The bench had said currently, the crime and its nature, whether it falls under the rarest of rare category, are discussed and the criminal and the mitigating circumstances favouring him are only dealt with at the time of sentencing.
In criminal law, mitigating circumstances are factors that help lessen the guilt of an offender and encourage the judge to be more lenient with the sentencing.
Senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, assisting the bench as an amicus curiae (friend of court), had submitted that mitigating circumstances are to be framed as per the earlier orders of the apex court.
Attorney General K K Venugopal, who was also assisting the bench, said that the task to consider mitigating circumstances against the award of death penalty can be left to the high courts which, in any case, have to approve the capital punishment.
The bench said that it would deprive the lower court judge an opportunity to have a look at the mitigating circumstances favouring the accused.
The suo motu case has been registered to examine and institutionalise the process involved in collection of data and information to decide the award of the death penalty.
The matter had arisen from a plea of a man named Irfan challenging the death penalty imposed on him by the trial court and confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The bench, earlier, had decided to examine how courts dealing with a death sentence case can procure a comprehensive analysis about the accused and the crime, especially the mitigating circumstances so that the judicial officer concerned can decide whether the death sentence needs to be awarded.
Prior to this, an application was filed by ‘Project 39A of the National Law University, Delhi, an anti-death penalty body, seeking the nod for an investigator who would collect mitigating information in favour of the accused to argue on the sentencing.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to deliver on Monday its verdict on a suo motu plea on framing of guidelines on how and when potential mitigating circumstances be considered by courts during trial in cases which entail the death penalty as the maximum punishment.
A death sentence is irreversible and every opportunity should be given to the accused for consideration of mitigating circumstances so that the court concludes that capital punishment is not warranted, a bench headed by Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit had observed while reserving its verdict on August 17.
The top court, on its own, had taken note of the issue saying that there was an urgent need to ensure that the mitigating circumstances for conviction of offences that carry the possibility of a death sentence are considered at the trial stage.
The case was titled as “Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences”.
It had said for an offence carrying capital punishment, the state must, at an appropriate stage, produce material that is preferably collected beforehand, before the Sessions Court disclosing the psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.
The bench had said currently, the crime and its nature, whether it falls under the rarest of rare category, are discussed and the criminal and the mitigating circumstances favouring him are only dealt with at the time of sentencing.
In criminal law, mitigating circumstances are factors that help lessen the guilt of an offender and encourage the judge to be more lenient with the sentencing.
Senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, assisting the bench as an amicus curiae (friend of court), had submitted that mitigating circumstances are to be framed as per the earlier orders of the apex court.
Attorney General K K Venugopal, who was also assisting the bench, said that the task to consider mitigating circumstances against the award of death penalty can be left to the high courts which, in any case, have to approve the capital punishment.
The bench said that it would deprive the lower court judge an opportunity to have a look at the mitigating circumstances favouring the accused.
The suo motu case has been registered to examine and institutionalise the process involved in collection of data and information to decide the award of the death penalty.
The matter had arisen from a plea of a man named Irfan challenging the death penalty imposed on him by the trial court and confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The bench, earlier, had decided to examine how courts dealing with a death sentence case can procure a comprehensive analysis about the accused and the crime, especially the mitigating circumstances so that the judicial officer concerned can decide whether the death sentence needs to be awarded.
Prior to this, an application was filed by ‘Project 39A of the National Law University, Delhi, an anti-death penalty body, seeking the nod for an investigator who would collect mitigating information in favour of the accused to argue on the sentencing.
