Supreme Court to decide on mandatory separate hearing for death penalty cases

Date of the Judgment: 19 September 2022
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat, J, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
The Supreme Court of India is grappling with a critical question: Should a separate hearing be mandatory after a conviction in cases where the death penalty is a possible sentence? This issue arises from conflicting opinions within the court itself, leading to a need for clarity on the matter. The core question revolves around the interpretation of Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates a hearing on sentencing after conviction. The current legal landscape is divided on whether this hearing requires a separate date and a detailed consideration of mitigating circumstances or if it can be a mere formality.

Case Background

The Supreme Court initiated a suo motu writ petition to address inconsistencies in judgments regarding sentencing hearings in capital offense cases. The core of the issue stems from differing interpretations of Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which requires a hearing on the question of sentence after a conviction. The court noted that while some judgments emphasize the need for a separate, meaningful hearing to consider mitigating circumstances, others suggest that same-day sentencing is acceptable if the accused is given an opportunity to present their case. This divergence has created uncertainty and potential unfairness in the application of the death penalty.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court, recognizing the conflicting views on the interpretation of Section 235(2) of the CrPC, initiated a suo motu writ petition. This was done to ensure a uniform approach regarding the opportunity given to an accused on the issue of sentencing. The court noted that while some judgments emphasize a separate, meaningful hearing to consider mitigating circumstances, others suggest that same-day sentencing is acceptable if the accused is given an opportunity to present their case. This divergence has created uncertainty and potential unfairness in the application of the death penalty.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision under consideration is Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which states:

“235. Judgment of acquittal or conviction.—(1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case. (2) 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.”

This provision mandates a hearing on sentencing after conviction. The court also considered Section 309 of the CrPC, which deals with the power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. The relevant part of Section 309 is:

“309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. (1) In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible… (2) If the Court… finds it necessary or advisable to postpone… any inquiry or trial, it may… postpone or adjourn the same… Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.”

The court noted that the second proviso to Section 309(2) was not considered in previous rulings. The court also discussed Section 354(3) of the CrPC, which requires special reasons for imposing a death sentence.

Additionally, the court examined Sections 432, 433, and 433A of the CrPC, which relate to the powers of the government to suspend, remit, or commute sentences, and the restrictions on these powers in cases of life imprisonment.

Arguments

The core arguments revolve around the interpretation of Section 235(2) of the CrPC and whether it mandates a separate hearing on sentencing. The arguments can be summarized as follows:

• Arguments for a Mandatory Separate Hearing:

  • The phrase “hear the accused on the question of sentence” in Section 235(2) implies a meaningful opportunity to present mitigating circumstances, not just a formal question.

  • A separate hearing is necessary to satisfy the principles of natural justice, allowing the accused to gather and present evidence related to sentencing.

  • The Law Commission’s 48th Report emphasized the need for comprehensive information about the offender’s background, which requires a separate hearing.

  • The hearing on sentencing is as important as the adjudication of guilt and should not be treated as a formality.

  • The accused is at a disadvantage if the sentencing hearing is held immediately after conviction, as they may not be prepared to present mitigating circumstances.

  • Several Supreme Court judgments, such as Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, have emphasized the need for a separate and meaningful hearing.

  • The court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, while upholding the death penalty, highlighted the importance of a separate hearing on sentencing as a safeguard.

  • The court in Mithu v. State of Punjab reiterated that the accused was entitled to be heard on the question of sentence before its imposition.

  • The court in Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra observed that the court should specifically indicate if it intends to impose the death penalty.

  • The court in Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh iterated the need to have a separate hearing, on the question of sentence.

  • The court in Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh highlighted that the scope of the opportunity afforded to the accused to be heard on sentencing, was not in keeping with the spirit of the law laid down in Bachan Singh.

• Arguments Against a Mandatory Separate Hearing:

  • Section 235(2) of the CrPC does not explicitly mandate a separate hearing on a different date; it only requires that the accused be heard on the question of sentence.

  • The proviso to Section 309(2) of the CrPC suggests that adjournment for the purpose of showing cause against the sentence is not mandatory.

  • The higher courts can remedy any deficiency in the sentencing hearing by providing a meaningful opportunity at the appellate stage, as held in Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra.

  • Several Supreme Court judgments, such as Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra, Tarlok Singh v. State of Punjab, B.A. Umesh v. High Court of Karnataka, and X v. State of Maharashtra, have concluded that same-day sentencing does not necessarily violate Section 235(2) of the CrPC.

  • The court in Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam held that while the accused facing the possibility of death sentence was not entitled to an adjournment, nothing barred the court from granting the same.

  • The court in X v. State of Maharashtra held that the term “hearing” occurring under Section 235(2) requires the accused and prosecution at their option, to be given a meaningful opportunity, and that it is to be measured qualitatively and not quantitatively.

Submissions by Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has not explicitly framed the issues in the judgment. However, the core issue is whether Section 235(2) of the CrPC mandates a separate hearing on a different date for sentencing after a conviction in cases where the death penalty is a possible sentence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court dealt with the issues

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the court:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on the 48th Law Commission Report to emphasize the need for comprehensive information about the offender’s background.
• The court considered Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1983 (1) SCR 145]* to highlight the importance of a separate hearing on sentencing as a safeguard for the accused.
• The court considered Santa Singh v. State of Punjab [(1976) 4 SCC 190]* to emphasize the importance of a separate hearing on the issue of sentence.
• The court considered Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1981) 3 SCC 11]* to highlight that Section 235(2) was not a formality.
• The court considered Mithu v. State of Punjab [(1983) 2 SCC 277]* to reiterate that the accused was entitled to be heard on the question of sentence before its imposition.
• The court considered Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar [(1989) 3 SCC 5]* to highlight that the requirement of hearing the accused is intended to satisfy the rule of natural justice.
• The court considered Anguswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1989) 3 SCC 33]* to express the same view as Allauddin Mian.
• The court considered Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab [(1991) 4 SCC 341]* to endorse the view that a separate hearing on the question of sentence should be afforded to the accused.
• The court considered Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra [(2020) 14 SCC 290]* to emphasize that the court should specifically indicate if it intends to impose the death penalty.
• The court considered Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 52]* to reiterate the need to have a separate hearing, on the question of sentence.
• The court considered Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 677]* to highlight that the scope of the opportunity afforded to the accused to be heard on sentencing, was not in keeping with the spirit of the law laid down in Bachan Singh.
• The court considered Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 3 SCC 68]* to highlight that it rejected the interpretation of Santa Singh as laying down that failure on the part of the court to hear a convicted accused, on the question of sentence , would necessitate remand to the trial court.
• The court considered Tarlok Singh v. State of Punjab [(1977) 3 SCC 218]* to highlight that it followed Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra.
• The court considered Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam [(2001) 5 SCC 714]* to highlight that it considered the proviso to Section 309(2) of CrPC in relation to Section 235(2).
• The court considered B.A. Umesh v. High Court of Karnataka [(2017) 4 SCC 124]* to highlight that it relied on Dagdu and concluded that the action of the court sentencing an accused on the same day as conviction in itself would not vitiate the sentence.
• The court considered Vasanta Sampatha Dupare v. State of Maharashtra [(2018) 6 SCC 631]* to highlight that it relied on Dagdu.
• The court considered Mukesh v. State of NCT [(2017) 6 SCC 1]* to highlight that it relied on Dagdu.
• The court considered Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar [(2019) 16 SCC 584]* to highlight that it relied on Dagdu.
• The court considered Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 1 SCC 596]* to highlight that it relied on Dagdu.
• The court considered X v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 7 SCC 1]* to highlight that it extensively considered the precedents on the question of sentencing, and concluded the position of law.
• The court considered Manoj Suryavanshi v. State of Chattisgarh [(2020) 4 SCC 451]* to highlight that it relied on the reasoning in X v. State of Maharashtra.
• The court considered Manoj Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan [2022 SCC OnLine SC 768]* to highlight that it considered ‘sufficient time’ for compliance with Section 235(2) CrPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench was primarily driven by the conflicting opinions and approaches in its own judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 235(2) of the CrPC. The court was concerned that the current ambiguity could lead to unfairness in the application of the death penalty. The court emphasized the need for clarity to ensure a uniform approach on the question of granting a real and meaningful opportunity to the accused on the issue of sentence, as opposed to a formal hearing.

The court’s reasoning was also influenced by the understanding that in capital punishment cases, aggravating circumstances are always on record as part of the prosecution’s evidence, while mitigating circumstances are presented by the accused after conviction. This creates a disadvantage for the accused, requiring a more structured approach to ensure fairness.

The court noted that in all cases where imposition of capital punishment is a choice of sentence, aggravating circumstances would always be on record, and would be part of the prosecution’sevidence. In contrast, mitigating circumstances are presented by the accused, after conviction. This imbalance, the court noted, required a structured approach.

Final Order

Given the conflicting views and the potential for unfairness, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench of five Hon’ble Judges for a definitive ruling on the interpretation of Section 235(2) of the CrPC. This larger bench will provide a binding precedent to resolve the existing ambiguity in the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the issue of mandatory separate sentencing hearings to a larger bench underscores the importance of procedural fairness in capital punishment cases. The court’s concern about the potential for unfairness, and the need to ensure a meaningful opportunity for the accused to present mitigating circumstances, highlights its commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice. The larger bench’s ruling will likely have a significant impact on the future of death penalty jurisprudence in India.