Date of the Judgment: 12 April 2019
Citation: Not Available
Judges: N. V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Indira Banerjee, J.
Can a person with a mental illness be executed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, focusing on the intersection of mental health and criminal justice. This case examines whether a convict’s post-conviction mental illness can be a reason to commute a death sentence. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering mental health in sentencing, particularly in cases involving the death penalty.
Case Background
The case involves a review petition filed by ‘Accused X’ against the Supreme Court’s previous decision confirming his death sentence. The accused was convicted for the rape and murder of two minor girls in Gulumb, Maharashtra, on 13 December 1999. The accused, after luring the girls with sweets, committed the heinous crime and disposed of their bodies. The accused was apprehended on 14 December 1999, and made an extra-judicial confession before the villagers. The police recovered the bodies based on the information provided by the accused.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 13 December 1999 | Accused X lured two minor girls with sweets, then raped and murdered them in Gulumb, Maharashtra. |
| 14 December 1999 | Accused X was apprehended by villagers and made an extra-judicial confession. Police recovered the bodies based on his information. |
| 25 December 1999 | Clothes of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused. |
| 2000 | Trial Court convicted the Petitioner for offences under Sections 201, 363, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. |
| 2001 | High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. |
| 2007 | Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence, classifying it as a ‘rarest of rare’ case. |
| 19 November 2008 | Review Petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the same three-judge bench. |
| 2 September 2014 | Supreme Court decision in Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737, allowing reopening of review petitions in death sentence cases. |
| 25 September 2014 | Report of the Class-I Psychiatrist, Yerawada Central Prison, indicating that the accused was suffering from some sort of mental illness. |
| 3 February 2017 | Supreme Court order in Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 3 SCC 717, regarding compliance of Section 235(2) of CrPC. |
| 28 November 2018 | Supreme Court decision in Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, observing that not having a separate hearing at the stage of trial was a procedural impropriety. |
| 12 December 2018 | Supreme Court decision in Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, making a general observation that in death penalty cases, the Trial Court should give an opportunity to the accused after conviction for production of relevant material. |
| 12 April 2019 | Supreme Court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment without remission. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted the accused based on the ‘last seen’ evidence, motive, blood-stained clothes, chemical analysis reports, recovery of bodies, discovery of the crime scene, extra-judicial confession, and false explanations. The High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence, except for the extra-judicial confession. The Supreme Court also affirmed the death sentence, categorizing it as a “rarest of rare” case. A review petition was dismissed. However, a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in *Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737*, allowed for the reopening of review petitions in death penalty cases, leading to the current hearing.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily discusses Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates a pre-sentencing hearing for the accused. It states:
“If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 360, hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.”
The Court also considers Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, and its implications for the execution of mentally ill persons. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, is also referenced, particularly Section 20(1), which states that “every person with mental illness shall have a right to live with dignity”.
Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, raised two main arguments:
- First Argument: The Trial Court did not provide a separate hearing on sentencing, violating Section 235(2) of the CrPC, which ensures the right to a pre-sentencing hearing as affirmed in *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684*.
- Second Argument: The death sentence is contrary to the ratio in *Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1*, and *Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 7 SCC 264*, which held that executing persons with mental illness violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The respondent’s counsel, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, argued that:
- The pre-sentencing hearing under Section 235(2) of the CrPC need not be on a separate date, relying on *Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 6 SCC 631*.
- The petitioner is not suffering from a mental illness that warrants commutation of the death sentence.
| Main Submissions | Petitioner’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Violation of Section 235(2) CrPC | Trial Court did not give a separate hearing while awarding the sentence. Order of conviction and sentence were passed on the same day. | Pre-sentencing hearing need not be on a separate date. Sentence awarded by Trial Court is not vitiated if hearing was not on a separate date. |
| Mental Illness as a Supervening Circumstance | Award of death sentence is contrary to Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1, and Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 7 SCC 264, as the execution of persons suffering from mental illness violates Article 21. | Petitioner is not suffering from any mental illness so as to warrant commutation of the death sentence. |
Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioner’s argument regarding post-conviction mental illness as a supervening circumstance is innovative, as it seeks to extend the protection of Article 21 to convicts who develop mental health issues after their conviction.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- What are the implications of non-compliance with Section 235(2) of the CrPC during the sentencing process before the Trial Court?
- What is the effect of the mental illness of ‘Accused X’, which was raised for the first time in this Review Petition, after the judgment of this Court in the earlier round?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Implications of non-compliance with Section 235(2) CrPC | The Court held that as long as the spirit and purpose of Section 235(2) is met, where the accused is afforded a real and effective opportunity to plead his case with respect to sentencing, there is no bar on the pre-sentencing hearing taking place on the same day as the pre-conviction hearing. The Court clarified that the violation can be remedied by the appellate Court by providing sufficient opportunity of being heard on sentence. |
| Mental illness of the accused as a mitigating factor | The Court recognized post-conviction mental illness as a mitigating factor for converting a death sentence to life imprisonment. It held that the execution of persons suffering from severe mental illness violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court also provided guidelines for assessing severe mental illness in convicts. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Piare Dusadh v. King Emperor, AIR 1944 FC 1 | Federal Court of India | Recognized post-conviction mental illness as a mitigating factor. |
| Santa Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 190 | Supreme Court of India | Interpreted Section 235(2) of CrPC, emphasizing the need to provide an opportunity to the accused to produce material related to sentencing. |
| Dagdu and others v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 3 SCC 68 | Supreme Court of India | Clarified that failure to hear the accused on sentencing does not necessarily entail a remand; the higher court can remedy the breach. |
| Tarlok Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 3 SCC 218 | Supreme Court of India | Held that if the minimum sentence is proposed, the question of providing an opportunity under Section 235(2) would not arise. |
| Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 916 | Supreme Court of India | Expressed concern that the pre-sentence hearing had become a mere formality. |
| Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 | Supreme Court of India | Affirmed the right of the accused to bring on record material or evidence at the stage of pre-sentence hearing. |
| Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1981) 3 SCC 11 | Supreme Court of India | Noted that merely putting a formal question to the accused does not discharge the requirement of Section 235(2). |
| Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, (1989) 3 SCC 5 | Supreme Court of India | Observed that the trial court had not provided sufficient time to the accused for hearing on sentencing. |
| Anguswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1989) 3 SCC 33 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated that a sentence awarded on the same day as the finding of guilt is not in accordance with law. |
| Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 341 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the proposition that the trial courts should adjourn the matter to a future date after recording the conviction. |
| Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991 SC 1463 | Supreme Court of India | Upheld the death sentence even though no time had been given to raise grounds on sentencing by the trial court. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, (1992) 3 SCC 700 | Supreme Court of India | Clarified that while Section 309 of the CrPC prescribed no power for adjournment of sentencing hearings, these should be provided where the accused sought to produce materials in capital cases. |
| Anshad v. State of Karnataka, (1994) 4 SCC 381 | Supreme Court of India | Disapproved of the trial judge dealing with sentencing cryptically. |
| Jai Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 1860 | Supreme Court of India | Observed that the trial court had given an opportunity to the defence to produce materials, which they chose not to do. |
| Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam, (2001) 5 SCC 714 | Supreme Court of India | Held that if the minimum sentence is proposed, the question of providing an opportunity under Section 235(2) would not arise. |
| Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) | Supreme Court of the United States | Discussed whether the execution of mentally retarded persons is “cruel and unusual punishment”. |
| Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar, (2009) 6 SCC 498 | Supreme Court of India | Stated that a bifurcated hearing for conviction and sentencing was a necessary condition. |
| Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 3 SCC (Cri.) 232 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the plea of legal insanity under Section 84 of the IPC. |
| Sunil Dutt Sharma Case, (2014) 4 SCC 375 | Supreme Court of India | Applied the sentencing guidelines evolved in the context of death penalty to a lesser sentence as well. |
| Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737 | Supreme Court of India | Held that review petitions in death sentence cases were required to be heard orally by a three-judge bench. |
| Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Held that insanity/mental illness is a crucial supervening circumstance to commute a death sentence. |
| Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 7 SCC 264 | Supreme Court of India | Held that the execution of persons suffering from mental illness violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. |
| Amrit Bhushan Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 608 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed that the plea of post-conviction mental illness is based on appreciation of punishment and right to dignity. |
| Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 6 SCC 631 | Supreme Court of India | Held that the mere non-conduct of the pre-sentence hearing on a separate date would not per se vitiate the trial. |
| B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, (2017) 4 SCC 124 | Supreme Court of India | Held that a review petition cannot be allowed merely because no separate date was given for hearing on the sentence. |
| Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 3 SCC 717 | Supreme Court of India | Observed that there was no compliance of Section 235(2) of CrPC by the courts below. |
| Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Held that if the procedural requirements under Section 235(2) of the CrPC are not met, the appellate court can either remit the case back to the trial court or adjourn the matter before the appellate forum for hearing on sentence. |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the irreducible core of the right to life, which is dignity. |
| Common Cause v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1665 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed that the right to human dignity comes in different shades and colors. |
| Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1482-1483 of 2018) | Supreme Court of India | Observed that not having a separate hearing at the stage of trial was a procedural impropriety. |
| Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 306-307 of 2013) | Supreme Court of India | Made a general observation that in cases where the death penalty may be awarded, the Trial Court should give an opportunity to the accused after conviction. |
| Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 | Supreme Court of India | Upheld the approach of directing that the petitioner shall remain in prison for the remainder of his life. |
| Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Upheld the approach of directing that the petitioner shall remain in prison for the remainder of his life. |
| Tattu Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 9 SCC 675 | Supreme Court of India | Upheld the approach of directing that the petitioner shall remain in prison for the remainder of his life. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court addressed the two issues raised in the review petition.
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Trial Court did not provide a separate hearing on sentencing, violating Section 235(2) of the CrPC. | The Court held that the Trial Court had complied with Section 235(2) of the CrPC, as the accused was heard on sentencing. The Court clarified that a separate hearing date is not mandatory if the accused is ready to submit arguments on the same day. |
| The death sentence is contrary to the ratio in Shatrughan Chauhan and Navneet Kaur, as the execution of persons suffering from mental illness violates Article 21. | The Court recognized post-conviction severe mental illness as a mitigating factor in death penalty cases. It held that executing a person with severe mental illness violates Article 21. However, it also clarified that this is not a ruse to escape the gallows by pleading such defense even if such ailment is not of grave severity. |
The Court considered the various authorities and came to the following conclusions:
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684: The Court affirmed that at the stage of pre-sentence hearing, the accused can bring on record material or evidence, which may not be strictly relevant to or connected with the particular crime under inquiry, but nevertheless, may have a bearing on the choice of sentence.
- Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1: The Court reiterated that insanity/mental illness is a crucial supervening circumstance, which should be considered by the Court in deciding whether to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence was influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the accused’s mental health and the need to uphold constitutional principles.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Rights (Article 21) | 30% |
| Mental Health and Dignity | 30% |
| Principles of Sentencing | 20% |
| Need for Care and Treatment | 10% |
| Rarest of Rare Doctrine | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- The accused had been suffering from some form of mental illness since 1994 and had been under psychiatric treatment.
- The Court recognized that prisons can exacerbate mental health issues, and the State has a duty to act as *parens patriae* (guardian of the people) for mentally ill prisoners.
- Executing a person with a severe mental illness would violate their right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The Court emphasized that the purpose of punishment is not served if the person does not understand the reason for the punishment.
Logical Reasoning
The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as remanding the case for a fresh assessment of the accused’s mental condition, but decided against it, given the circumstances and the available medical reports. The Court also took into account the gravity of the crime and the accused’s past conduct, which led to the decision of life imprisonment without remission.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “If the accused is ready to submit his arguments on this aspect on the very day of pronouncement of the judgment of conviction, it is open for the Trial Court to hear the parties on sentence on the same day after passing the judgment of conviction.”
- “All human beings possess the capacities inherent in their nature even though, because of infancy, disability, or senility, they may not yet, not now, or no longer have the ability to exercise them.”
- “The test envisaged herein predicates that the offender needs to have a severe mental illness or disability, which simply means that objectively the illness needs to be most serious that the accused cannot understand or comprehend the nature and purpose behind the imposition of such punishment.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this judgment.
The Court introduced a new test for evaluating post-conviction mental illness, focusing on the severity of the illness and its impact on the convict’s ability to understand the nature and purpose of the punishment. This test is based on the concept of dignity and the constitutional right to life.
The Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving the death penalty and mental illness. It sets a precedent for considering mental health as a crucial factor in sentencing.
Key Takeaways
- Post-conviction severe mental illness is a mitigating factor in death penalty cases.
- Executing a person with a severe mental illness violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
- A ‘test of severity’ is introduced to assess mental illness, focusing on the convict’s ability to understand the nature and purpose of punishment.
- The State has a duty to act as *parens patriae* for mentally ill prisoners, providing care and treatment.
- The appellate court can rectify non-compliance of Section 235(2) of CrPC by providing sufficient opportunity of being heard on sentence.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed:
- The sentence of death awarded to the Petitioner is commuted to imprisonment for the remainder of his life sans any right to remission.
- The State Government to consider the case of ‘accused x’ under the appropriate provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and if found entitled, provide for his rights under that enactment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that post-conviction severe mental illness is a mitigating factor that can lead to the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment. This marks a significant development in the law, as it recognizes the importance of mental health in sentencing and provides a framework for assessing severe mental illness in convicts. It also clarifies that the pre-sentencing hearing under Section 235(2) of CrPC need not be on a separate date, but the accused must be provided with a meaningful opportunity to present their case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is a significant step towards recognizing the rights of mentally ill convicts. The court commuted the death sentence of ‘Accused X’ to life imprisonment without remission, emphasizing that severe mental illness is a crucial mitigating factor. This decision underscores the importance of considering mental health in the criminal justice system and reinforces the constitutional right to dignity for all individuals, including those convicted of heinous crimes.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Sentencing, Death Penalty, Mental Health, Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 21, Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, Section 235(2), Code of Criminal Procedure
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in this Supreme Court judgment?
A: The main issue is whether a convict’s post-conviction mental illness can be a valid reason to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Q: What is Section 235(2) of the CrPC?
A: Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that a judge must hear the accused on the question of sentence after conviction, providing an opportunity to present mitigating circumstances.
Q: What did the Supreme Court say about pre-sentencing hearings?
A: The Supreme Court clarified that a pre-sentencing hearing need not be on a separate date, but the accused must be given a real and effective opportunity to present their case.
Q: What is the significance of Article 21 in this judgment?
A: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, is interpreted to mean that executing a person with a severe mental illness would violate their right to dignity.
Q: What is the ‘test of severity’ introduced by the Supreme Court?
A: The ‘test of severity’ is a framework for assessing mental illness, focusing on whether the illness is so severe that the accused cannot understand the nature and purpose of the punishment.
Q: What is the role of the State towards mentally ill prisoners?
A: The State has a duty to act as *parens patriae* (guardian of the people) for mentally ill prisoners, providing care and treatment as per the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
Q: What does thisjudgment mean for future cases?
A: This judgment sets a precedent for considering mental health as a crucial factor in sentencing, particularly in death penalty cases. It establishes that post-conviction severe mental illness can be a valid reason to commute a death sentence.