The Supreme Court has said that it can revisit its own verdict of a death sentence if it is convinced that the accused has been condemned to the death penalty without ensuring that the guidelines mandated by the top court were followed.
The Supreme Court, in a recent verdict setting aside the death sentence of a man convicted of the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl, held that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the top court in cases related to capital punishment to reopen the sentencing stage.
In 2017, the top court passed an order upholding the death sentence of Vasanta Sampat Dupare, convicted of the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl. Now, the top court has directed a fresh hearing on his punishment.
The court proceeded to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India to reassign the case for fresh sentencing, as the man is still convicted of the rape and murder of a minor.
This judgment comes as a significant development, especially with regard to the options available for those awarded capital punishment by the Supreme Court itself.
The decision delivered by a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta said that this corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the safeguards laid down by the top court in the Manoj judgment, thereby ensuring that the condemned person is not deprived of the fundamental rights to equal treatment, individualised sentencing, and fair procedure that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution secure to every person.
This verdict came after an Article 32 petition filed by Dupare, who argued that his sentencing did not comply with the 2022 judgment in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which had mandated courts to undertake a detailed evaluation of mitigating factors such as the convict's socio-economic background, mental health, and possibility of reform before imposing the death penalty.
"The writ petition is allowed. Therefore, we hold that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers this Court in cases related to capital punishment to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to the death penalty without ensuring that the guidelines mandated in Manoj were followed," the order read.
The judgment becomes significant as the Supreme Court has not only acknowledged the retrospective reach of the Manoj judgment but has also clarified that Article 32 empowers it to reopen sentencing in death penalty cases where its own procedural safeguards have not been observed. However, the court maintained that reopening will be reserved for only those cases where there is a breach of new procedural safeguards, as such breaches are so serious that, if left uncorrected, they would undermine the accused's basic rights to life.
The top court has emphasised that the death penalty, being the rarest of rare punishments, cannot be imposed mechanically without giving due weight to the convict's life circumstances.
In the Manoj verdict, the Supreme Court had laid down a more structured sentencing framework, requiring trial courts and High Courts to seek comprehensive psychological, psychiatric, and social evaluation reports of the convict before awarding the death penalty. The top court found that this was not done in Dupare's case.
