Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
200 views6 pages

CRPC Case

1) The Supreme Court reopened a review petition citing a previous ruling that all review petitions dismissed by circulation must be reopened. The defense argued the accused had developed acute mental illness after 17 years awaiting death penalty. 2) The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, noting that executing a convict suffering from post-conviction severe mental illness violates constitutional rights. It laid out criteria for determining severe mental illness. 3) The ruling establishes post-conviction mental illness as a mitigating factor in sentencing, requiring appellate courts to consider severity of illness in cases where accused plead this defense. It aims to prevent using mental illness claims as an excuse to avoid capital punishment.

Uploaded by

dishu kumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
200 views6 pages

CRPC Case

1) The Supreme Court reopened a review petition citing a previous ruling that all review petitions dismissed by circulation must be reopened. The defense argued the accused had developed acute mental illness after 17 years awaiting death penalty. 2) The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, noting that executing a convict suffering from post-conviction severe mental illness violates constitutional rights. It laid out criteria for determining severe mental illness. 3) The ruling establishes post-conviction mental illness as a mitigating factor in sentencing, requiring appellate courts to consider severity of illness in cases where accused plead this defense. It aims to prevent using mental illness claims as an excuse to avoid capital punishment.

Uploaded by

dishu kumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

University Institute of Legal Studies

Panjab University, Chandigarh

“ Accused x v/s State of Maharashtra”


A Project Report Submitted as a part of curriculum of B.Com. LL.B.
(Hons.) in the subject of

“Criminal Procedure Code,1973”

Submitted To: Submitted By:


Prof. Sangita Bhalla Jigerjeet Singh (171/18)
(Faculty of Law) Gagandeep Sodha(160/18)
Dishu Kumar (236/18)
Arshpreet Singh(239/18)
B.com llb (C)
6 th Semester
Acknowledgement

We would like to express our sincere thanks to our ‘Code of Criminal


Procedure’ law faculty Prof. Sangita Bhalla who gave us the opportunity to
undertake research work on the topic ‘Accused X v/s State of Maharashtra’
which help us in doing a lot of research and we understood the concepts
mentioned in the above case. We are also grateful to her for her continuous
support throughout the research.

We are thankful to her for encouraging us to carry out this research. We would
also like to convey our thanks to our classmates for helping us in this case
study.
Accused x v/s State of Maharashtra
(sc 12 april 2019)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 301 OF 2008
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 680 OF 2007

Petitioner: Accused ‘X’

Respondent: State Of Maharashtra

FACTS IN BRIEF

!) The instant matter pertain to reopening of the review petition, to Review final
judgment dated 16.05.2008 passed by Supreme Court. Which upheld 2 years of
rigorous imprisonment and Death sentence imposed upon petitioner?

2) The petitioner herein is accused of committing rape and murder of two small
girls. The Trial court found that the all circumstances formed a complete chain
pointing to the guilt of petitioner.

3) Then the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal confirmed the conviction
and sentence as awarded by the Trial Court including the sentence of death.

4)The matter was finally taken to the Corridors of Supreme Court in criminal
Appeal, Supreme court confirmed the same holding that the case at hand falls into
category of „Rarest of Rare‟.

5)The Accused in Present Review Petition pleaded on entirely new ground of


Post Conviction Mental Illness. Which forced the full bench to develop landmark
ratio in which Full bench delt with the complex questions of mental illness and
crime?

Judgement

1)The Trial Court found the case to fall within the ambit of “rarest of rare” and
awarded death penalty to the accused.

2) The same was confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

3) Later, a revision application was filed before the Apex Court which was
dismissed by circulation. Then, the review application was reopened citing the
case of Mohd Arif v. Supreme Court of India (MANU/SC/1788/2016), wherein
it was held that all review petitions that have been dismissed by circulation must
be reopened.

4) In this “re-opened review petition” it was argued on behalf of the defence that
the accused has been awaiting death penalty for 17 years now and has developed
acute mental illness meriting the commutation of his death sentence.

Basis of supreme court judgement

1) The Supreme Court began the judgement by stressing on the importance of


reasoning in the sentencing process. It opined that sentencing is an extremely
crucial aspect of the criminal justice system as it has severe ramifications upon the
liberty of the accused.. Thus, according to the Supreme Court, in order to have a
fair sentencing mechanism, the judges must be given the discretion to choose the
punishment from the legislatively prescribed range. Moreover, such discretion must
be exercised following the judicially set principles. The Court concluded that the
sentencing mechanism in Indian would benefit from “uniformity” that can only be
brought by the combined effort of legislature and judiciary.

2) Firstly, the Supreme Court stated that Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India
mandates that the convict must possess the “knowledge” of the crime committed by
him and he/she must be “communicated” the purpose of the death sentence.
Therefore, if a person develops mental illness post his conviction which disables
him to understand the purpose of his execution, then the “reason d’etre” of the
punishment collapses. Thus, the Court believes that no convict who is awarded
capital punishment should be executed if he is unable to understand the purpose of
his death sentence. Such inability defeats the very reason for granting the
punishment in the first place. The Supreme Court emphasised that one of the most
important parts of awarding a death sentence is creating deterrence against the
crime.

3) Secondly, the Supreme Court while citing Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of


India, iterated that Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to human
dignity in all its shades and colours. This concept of dignity under Article 21 of the
Constitution includes “the capacity to understand” which is inherent to all human
beings. However, in cases where this capacity is depleted and the convict can no
longer understand the purpose of his execution, the right to human dignity
mandates the commutation of his/her death sentence. This means that executing a
convict who has been suffering from post-conviction mental illness violates his/her
right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

4) Thirdly, the Supreme Court stated that a post-conviction mental illness has to be
taken into account while evaluating whether or not the case falls within the ambit
of the “rarest of rare” doctrine as laid down in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of
Punjab. The Court held that if at any point before execution, a convict is diagnosed
with mental illness that takes away his ability to understand the purpose of his
punishment, then the rarest of rare doctrine stops applying and the death penalty
can no longer be imposed. Thus, relying upon these considerations, the Court held
that execution is not permissible in a case where the convict develops post-
conviction mental illness.

5) Thereafter, the Supreme Court noted that developing post-conviction mental


illness is not enough for the commutation of a convict’s death sentence. For such
commutation to be applicable, the convict must suffer from mental illness in its
“severe or extreme form”. The Court laid down the test of severity vis-à-vis mental
illness by the aid of the “International Classification of Diseases” which defines
severe mental illness as:

 Schizophrenia or delusional disorders;


 Mood (affective) disorders, including depressive, manic and bipolar forms;
 Neuroses, including phobic, panic and obsessive-compulsive disorders;
 Behavioural disorders, including eating, stress and sleep disorders; and
 Personality disorders of different kinds.

6) On the basis of various Evidences and opinion offered by expert psychiatrist, the
petition was allowed and Death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment

Analysis And comment

The Guidelines issued in the instant case makes this ratio unique and landmark in
the history of criminal jurisprudence of India, As it held‟s that „Post Conviction
Mental Illness‟ is the mitigating factor which appellate courts needs to consider
while sentencing an accused to death Penalty. This Itself developed a New Ground
where an accused can plead on basis of Severity of his mental illness and get justice
directly from Lower Courts. The Full Bench while defining the „Test of Severity‟
held that "Considering that India has taken an obligation at an international forum
to not punish mental patients with cruel and unusual punishments, it would be
necessary for this Court to provide for a test wherein only extreme cases of
convicts being mentally ill are not executed. Moreover, this Court cautions against
utilization of this dicta as a ruse to escape the gallows by pleading such defense
even if such aliment is not of grave severity

Conclusion

Our end note towards closure of this case comment Is to heartily appreciate and
signify the impact that this judgment will have in near future. Also an ode to the
honorable Bench who have paved a way for better life of the imprisoned. Being a
landmark judgment per se, this judgment has potential to reverse many intense
punishments as given in this case. In a country like India, where large sum of
population demands Capital Punishment for grievous crimes, it would be very
debatable and interesting of what impact it will have on laymen perspective
towards reversing capital punishment on grounds of mental illnesses. Despite of
our current best efforts, we still aren‟t halfway to our goal of „Quality Dignified
life' as mentioned in the first paragraph in regards with article 21. Furthermore with
the research which insist on better involvement of concerned authority towards the
mental health of prisoners as there is no alternative for them apart from what is
being served.

You might also like