NDLI: Accused `x` Vs. State of Maharashtra

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Pre-sentence hearing ss. 235(2) and 465 Object and purpose of Cr.P.C
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (10 of 2017) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22 Referred Case 23
Case Type	Review Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Allowed
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : ss. 235(2) and 465 – Pre-sentence hearing – Object and purpose of – Whether pre-sentencing hearing, if conducted on the date of conviction, is in contravention of s. 235(2) – Held: Object of s. 235(2) is to provide an opportunity for accused to adduce mitigating circumstances – As long a purpose of s. 235(2) is met, inasmuch as the accused is afforded a real and effective opportunity to plead his case in respect of sentencing, there is no bar on presentencing hearing taking place on the same day as of conviction – Even assuming that a procedural irregularity is committed by trial court to a certain extent on the question of hearing on sentence, the violation can be remedial by appellate court – However, in view of s.465 the appellate Court can reverse or alter order of competent jurisdiction on account of any error or irregularity only when such error/irregularity results in failure of justice – In the facts of the present case it cannot be said that the procedure envisaged u/s. 235(2) was not complied with. Sentence / Sentencing Imposition of sentence – Need to give reasons – Held: Trial court is obliged to give reasons for imposition of sentence – Any increase or decrease in the quantum of punishment than the usual levels need to be reasoned – The principle is fortified by the statute u/s. 235(2) Cr. P.C. as also by judicial interpretation – However, any reasoning dependent on moral and personal opinion/notion of a judge about an offence needs to be avoided Sentencing discretion – Exercise of – Held: Power to exercise discretion in giving punishment, should be exercised by Judges in a principled manner – A strict fixed punishment approach in sentencing cannot be accepted. Death sentence – Post-conviction mental illness – Whether a mitigating factor for converting a death sentence to life imprisonment – Held:Post-conviction mental illness is based on appreciation of punishment and right to dignity – The Constitution embodies broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity and decency against which penal measures have to be evaluated – There is strong international consensus against the execution of individuals with mental illness – Various Prison Rules also recognise post-conviction mental illness as a relevant factor for Government to consider under its clemency jurisdiction – In the present case, since the mitigating factors were not present at the time of commission of crime, this ground needs to be utilized only in extreme cases of illness – There is no set disorders/disabilities for evaluating ‘severe mental illness’ - However, a ‘test of severity’ can be a guiding factor for recognizing those mental illnesses which qualify for an exemption – Post-conviction severe mental illness will be a mitigating factor that the appellate court, in appropriate cases needs to consider while sentencing an accused to death penalty – Assessment of such disability is to be conducted by a multidisciplinary team of qualified professionals – Burden to prove severe mental illness is on the accused – In the present case assessment by the Psychiatrist with regard to mental illness of the accused is without any objective factor for such assessment and seems to be incomplete – However, in the facts of the case, it is not appropriate to constitute a panel for reassessment of the mental health of the accused – In view of fact situation of the case, life imprisonment simplicitor would be inadequate – Therefore, death sentence is commuted to imprisonment for remainder of his life sans any right to remission – Constitution of India – Arts. 20(1) and 21 – Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 – ss. 3 and 20(1) – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 84. Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: s.103 – Prisoners in jail – Cannot be ignored and left to rot away – State is obliged to act as a parens patriae – The Act aspires to provide mental health care to those who are in need, including the prisoners – State is obliged to set up mental health establishment in the medical wing of at least one prison in each State/Union Territory – State directed to consider the case of the accused under the appropriate provisions of the Act.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 518
Petitioner	Accused `x`
Respondent	State Of Maharashtra
SCR	[2019] 6 S.C.R. 1
Judgement Date	2019-04-12
Case Number	301

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Accused `x` Vs. State of Maharashtra

Please Log-in to view this content

Md Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Vs. State of Bihar

Santa Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Vasanta Sampat Dupare Vs. State of Maharashtra

B.a. Umesh Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka

Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Ms. X Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another

Harbans Singh Vs. State of U.p. & Others

Babasaheb Maruti Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra

Sawal Das Vs. The State of Bihar

Accused `x` Vs. State of Maharashtra

Accused `x` Vs. State of Maharashtra

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Md Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Vs. State of Bihar

Santa Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Vasanta Sampat Dupare Vs. State of Maharashtra

B.a. Umesh Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka

Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Ms. X Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another

Harbans Singh Vs. State of U.p. & Others

Babasaheb Maruti Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra

Sawal Das Vs. The State of Bihar

Accused `x` Vs. State of Maharashtra