'Possibility of Reformation and Rehabilitation of Death Convicts' as a Mitigating Circumstance

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Today, I will talk about the case of Mofil Khan & Another v. the State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1795 of 2009, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the importance of the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation while awarding death sentence to a convict. 

 

BACKDROP 

 

It is well-known that death penalty in India is awarded to only those convicts whose offences fall under the category of ‘rarest of rare’ cases. While considering whether a case falls under the category of ‘rarest of rare’ cases or not, the Court usually considers the mitigating circumstances of the probability of the convict being reformed and rehabilitated. In order to understand the importance of reformation and rehabilitation while awarding death penalty, let us understand the pertinent observations by the Court. 

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT 

  

Firstly, the Court explained that “the State is under a duty to procure evidence to establish that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. Death sentence ought not to be imposed, save in the rarest of the rare cases when the alternative option of a lesser punishment is unquestionably foreclosed.” According to the Court, “to satisfy that the sentencing aim of reformation is unachievable, rendering life imprisonment completely futile, the Court will have to highlight clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme.”

 

Secondly, the Court cited S. 354 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that provides that while awarding death penalty, apart from providing general reasoning, the Court must also provide “special reasons” for imposition of death penalty. According to the Court, death penalty “ought not to be taken lightly since it involves snuffing out the life of a person.”

 

Thirdly, the Court elucidated that it is the duty of the prosecution to demonstrate that the convict cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. “This can be achieved by bringing on record, material about his conduct in jail, his conduct outside jail if he has been on bail for some time, medical evidence about his mental make-up, contact with his family and so on. Similarly, the convict can produce evidence on these issues as well.”

 

And lastly, the Court observed that “the hearing of sentence should be effective and even if the accused remains silent, the Court would be obliged and duty-bound to elicit relevant factors.” According to the Court, socio-economic background of the convict, criminal antecedents, statements of family and community members, good conduct in jail etc. are some of the factors that should be taken into account to look into the possibility of reformation of the convict. If such factors exist, then the alternative option of imposing a lesser sentence may be considered.

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

 

Those were the observations by the Court. In conclusion, following important points emerge: -

 

a. It is the duty of the State to demonstrate that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict who is awarded death penalty.

b. 354 (3) of CrPC mandates providing of “special reasons” by the Court while imposing death penalty.

c. Such “special reasons” include the circumstances mitigating the imposition of death penalty such as socio-economic background of the convict, his criminal antecedents, good conduct in jail etc.

d. If mitigating circumstances exist, then a lesser sentence could be imposed on the convict.

 

Therefore, I hope that mitigating circumstances that indicate possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of a convict is clear by now.