Last Updated:
The Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of a man convicted of raping and murdering a four-year-old girl, citing Article 32 of the Constitution.
File photo of Supreme Court of India. (PTI photo)
The Supreme Court has announced it can reconsider its own death sentence verdict if it believes the condemned was sentenced without adhering to the mandated guidelines.
Recently, the Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of a man convicted of raping and murdering a four-year-old girl, citing Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows the court to reopen the sentencing stage in capital punishment cases.
Recommended Stories
In 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of Vasanta Sampat Dupare for raping and murdering a minor. However, it has now ordered a fresh hearing regarding his punishment, placing the matter before the Chief Justice of India for reassignment.
This judgment marks a significant development, offering new options for those sentenced to capital punishment by the Supreme Court.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta emphasised the importance of strict adherence to safeguards outlined in the Manoj judgment. These safeguards ensure that the condemned person receives equal treatment, individualised sentencing, and fair procedure as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The verdict followed an Article 32 petition by Dupare, arguing that his sentencing did not comply with the 2022 Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment. This judgment required courts to evaluate mitigating factors such as the convict’s socio-economic background, mental health, and potential for reform before imposing the death penalty.
The order stated, “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.”
This judgment is notable as the Supreme Court acknowledges the retrospective effect of the Manoj judgment and clarifies that Article 32 empowers it to reopen sentencing in death penalty cases where procedural safeguards have been neglected. The court emphasised that such reopenings will be reserved for cases where breaches of procedural safeguards are serious enough to undermine the accused’s basic rights to life.
The Supreme Court stressed that the death penalty, being the rarest of rare punishments, cannot be imposed mechanically without considering the convict’s life circumstances.
The Manoj verdict had established a structured sentencing framework, requiring trial courts and High Courts to obtain comprehensive psychological, psychiatric, and social evaluation reports of the convict before awarding the death penalty. This was found to be lacking in Dupare’s case.
About the Author
The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk d…Read More
The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk d… Read More
Loading comments…
Read More
