Summary
The suo motu writ petition was registered after Manoj v. State of M.P.. It concerns a framework for collecting such circumstances before a death sentence is imposed. The three-judge Bench found two conflicting lines of three-judge decisions on Section 235(2) CrPC. One line (Santa Singh, Allauddin Mian, Dattaraya) treats a separate post-conviction hearing on sentence as mandatory and same-day sentencing as vitiating. The other (Dagdu, Ramdeo Chauhan, X v. State of Maharashtra) holds that same-day sentencing does not itself vitiate the sentence and can be cured on appeal. Because Bachan Singh relied on this hearing as a safeguard, and the accused can present mitigation only after conviction, the question was referred to a five-judge Bench.
Issues
- Whether, after conviction for an offence punishable with death, the court must hold a separate hearing on sentence on a later date under Section 235(2) CrPC
- What constitutes a real and meaningful opportunity, including sufficient time, for the accused to place mitigating circumstances on record at the trial stage
Provisions considered
- Section 235(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The right of the convicted accused to be heard on sentence was the provision whose requirements, a separate hearing and sufficient time, divided two lines of three-judge Benches, necessitating the reference. (¶¶ 2, 7, 10, 12, 16, 19, 23)
- Section 309(2), third proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Ramdeo Chauhan read the bar on adjournments merely to show cause against sentence as not preventing an adjournment where death is proposed, one strand of the conflicting case law. (¶¶ 2, 17)
- Section 354(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The requirement of special reasons for a death sentence, read with Section 235(2), underpinned Bachan Singh's view that the circumstances of the criminal, not just the crime, must be considered. (¶¶ 3, 4)
Held
- Bachan Singh upheld the death penalty in the rarest of rare cases relying, among other safeguards, on the bifurcated trial and pre-sentence hearing under Section 235(2). It recognised the parties' right to produce material bearing on sentence, and Mithu struck down the mandatory death sentence in Section 303 IPC partly because it denied that hearing. (¶¶ 3, 4, 6, 9)
- One line of decisions holds the hearing mandatory and not a formality: Santa Singh, Muniappan, Allauddin Mian, Malkiat Singh, Dattaraya and Bhagwani. It treats same-day sentencing as violating natural justice and Section 235(2). Another three-judge line holds that the absence of a separate hearing does not itself vitiate the sentence and can be remedied at the appellate stage: Dagdu, Tarlok Singh, Ramdeo Chauhan, B.A. Umesh, Mukesh and X v. State of Maharashtra. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Both lines require a real and effective hearing, but neither considers what time that requires at trial. Aggravating circumstances are always on record through the prosecution evidence, while the accused can place mitigating circumstances only after conviction, which tilts the scales against the accused. Clarity and a uniform approach are needed, so the question was referred to a Bench of five Judges. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
Result
Matter referred to a larger Bench of five Judges, to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.