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.
No comments:
Post a Comment