Recently, a Supreme Court led by Justice Vikram Nath stayed the execution of the death sentence imposed on a man and his brother in a triple murder case by the Patna High Court in January.

Two brothers were convicted and sentenced to death for killing three relatives five years ago over a land dispute in Bihar’s Rohtas district.

SC Bench comprising of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi ordered that, “The execution of the death sentence of the appellants shall remain stayed pending the hearing and the final disposal of the appeal”.

The Apex Court Bench pointed to a troubling trend where reports on mitigating and aggravating factors in death penalty cases were not being called for at the early stages of proceedings.

SC Bench further added that, “This omission creates a piquant situation in which such crucial material is for the first time sought only at the stage of appeal before this court, thereby causing a long gap and avoidable delay in collection of information essential for a proper, timely and informed determination on the question of sentence”.

Delayed consideration of these factors undermines the very objective of a balanced sentencing process, and impedes the meaningful application of reformative principles, Bench added.

Apex Court expounded that in a significant number of cases involving potential death sentences, the quality of defence afforded to the accused persons remains inadequate, which results in ineffective legal representation at crucial stages of the proceedings. Such deficiencies are reflected in lackadaisical investigation and slackness in trial court proceedings.

SC Bench added, “There is hardly any attempt to collect data relating to mitigating and aggravating circumstances,” and that this deprives the court of a complete and balanced perspective necessary for a just determination and imposition of sentence.

For these reasons, Supreme Court Bench proceeded to pass directions to deal with such cases which involved potential death sentences.

These included a direction to the trial court calling for a report relating to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances as a matter of course, before determining the sentence of the convict. If such a report has been called for by a trial court, high courts must mandatorily call for the same while admitting such cases.

The authorities concerned shall ensure that such reports are comprehensive, duly verified and given with a stipulated timeframe to avoid any delay in the adjudication process, and to aid and enable the courts to undertake a meaningful, informed and constitutionally compliant sentencing exercise.

The court must give adequate opportunity to the parties to give their oral arguments, the bench noted, adding that if the trial court finds the reports to be ineffective or lacking in proper details, high courts can call for fresh reports.

SC Bench said that in every sentence confirmation brought before the high courts or Supreme Court, the legal services committee shall assign a legal team with one senior counsel and at least two advocates with a minimum of seven years practice experience to represent the convicts. Such representation must be provided, regardless of whether the convict has engaged private counsel or not, it ruled while pointing to the need for a balanced approach which takes into account the possibilities of reformation and rehabilitation.

Source PTI

Picture Source :