“Judges should never be bloodthirsty”—this principle highlights the judiciary’s duty to carefully consider mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases.
NEW DELHI: The recent Supreme Court judgment commuting a death sentence brings renewed attention to the complex and often inconsistent application of mitigating circumstances in capital punishment cases. The issue of how such factors are weighed has long been debated, with no clear criteria set forth by the judiciary.
The ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine and Judicial Restraint
Justice R.S. Sarkaria, in the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), established the ‘rarest of rare cases’ doctrine for awarding the death penalty. In his ruling, he underscored the importance of judicial restraint, stating, “Judges should never be bloodthirsty.”
This principle highlighted the necessity of evaluating both aggravating and mitigating factors before pronouncing a death sentence. Mitigating factors, in particular, serve to provide context regarding the crime and the individual responsible, encompassing aspects such as the convict’s socio-economic background, personal history, conduct in prison, and mental and physical health.
Importance of Sentencing Hearings
In theory, the sentencing process for capital punishment involves a separate hearing that allows the convict to present mitigating circumstances. This practice acknowledges that criminal behavior is often shaped by external factors, including societal influences. However, in practice, courts have exhibited inconsistency in how they consider these factors, leading to concerns about arbitrary sentencing.
The Case of Ramesh A. Naika v. The Registrar General High Court of Karnataka
The Appellant, Ramesh A. Naika, was employed as a Manager at Punjab National Bank, while his wife worked at the State Bank of Mysore. The couple had two children, aged 10 years and 3½ years. The case revolved around Ramesh’s discontent with the life choices of his sister-in-law, whom he had assisted in securing a job at the Provident Fund office.
She fell in love with a colleague and expressed her desire to marry him, a decision Ramesh strongly opposed. He initially attempted to persuade his wife to intervene, but she refused. The issue resurfaced during a visit to his in-laws’ residence, where his wife once again did not support his stance.
Allegedly, to punish his wife and sister-in-law, Ramesh decided to take the lives of multiple family members. He allegedly murdered his mother-in-law and sister-in-law and disposed of their bodies in a sump tank at his house. Later, under the pretense of taking his children on an outing, he drowned them in a tank at a garden.
Subsequently, he sent a message to his wife, stating that her mother, sister, and children were dead and that she too should end her life. Alarmed, she reached out to her relatives, who advised approaching the authorities. Upon investigation, the deceased bodies were discovered in the water tank, leading to Ramesh’s arrest.
Legal Proceedings and Sentencing
Ramesh was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder. The Trial Court found him guilty and imposed the death penalty. The High Court upheld the death sentence, leading Ramesh to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.
Aggravating Factors Considered by the Trial Court
The trial court justified the death sentence by emphasizing aggravating factors, such as:
- The brutality of the murders
- The premeditated and unprovoked nature of the crime
- His attempts to intimidate witnesses
However, it largely disregarded mitigating factors, merely acknowledging that Ramesh had been employed as a bank manager and could have served as a role model in society.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court deliberated on the case with a critical lens, acknowledging the gravity and brutality of the crimes. The bench emphasized the significance of parental responsibility, citing that parents are fundamental figures in a child’s life, expected to provide love, care, and guidance.
The Court remarked,
“A child’s parents are their reason for existence and form an indispensable part of their lives, even more so in the early years of life.”
It also highlighted the deep-rooted cultural and moral expectations associated with parenthood in India.
The Court underscored the helplessness of the two children who met a tragic fate at the hands of their father. While acknowledging the heinous nature of the act, it also took note of mitigating circumstances. The Court observed that the accused’s rigid, authoritarian approach led to these violent actions. It noted,
“Whom a person falls in love with is not within the human sphere of control… It is unfortunate that the accused chose to impose his will through such extreme means.”
Mitigating Factors and Commutation of Sentence
The Supreme Court stressed that
“capital punishment should only be imposed in cases where no mitigating factor justifies a lesser sentence“
It found that the lower courts had not conducted a thorough examination of the mitigating circumstances in Ramesh’s case. These factors included:
- Lack of criminal antecedents: The accused had no prior criminal record.
- Good behavior in custody: He maintained a positive record in prison.
- Intent to repent: The convict expressed remorse and a willingness to serve others.
- Reliance on circumstantial evidence: The case was largely built on indirect evidence rather than direct proof.
Given these factors, the Apex Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission. The Court ruled that Ramesh
“shall now await his natural end, without remission, in the confines of a penitentiary.”
ALSO READ: ‘Yes, Death Penalty Is Constitutional’: AI Lawyer Responds To CJI Chandrachud’s Question
The Inconsistencies in Applying Mitigating Circumstances
The inconsistency in applying mitigating circumstances stems from the Supreme Court’s reluctance to establish definitive guidelines since Bachan Singh. The Court had stated that the weight assigned to aggravating and mitigating factors depends on the specifics of each case, refusing to adopt a standardized approach.
The ‘Balance Sheet’ Approach in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the Court proposed a ‘balance sheet’ method, wherein
“judges were to balance aggravating and mitigating factors rather than merely weighing them against one another“
However, the absence of clear instructions on how to conduct this balancing act has led to further inconsistency. Some benches have given greater significance to specific mitigating factors, while others have resorted to simply tallying the number of factors on each side to reach a decision.
Findings of Project 39A on Sentencing Trends
A 2022 study by Project 39A, a research collective focusing on the death penalty, analyzed trial court sentencing between 2018 and 2020 and revealed significant inconsistencies in the acknowledgment and application of mitigating factors. The study found:
- Out of 306 death sentences examined, mitigating circumstances were not considered in 66% of cases
- In 40% of cases, mitigating factors were not even mentioned
These findings underscore the urgent need for judicial clarity in sentencing procedures.
The Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Recognition of the Issue
Recognizing this inconsistency, the Supreme Court, in 2022, took suo motu cognizance of the issue and emphasized the necessity of establishing clear guidelines for mitigating factors. The Court also addressed conflicting judgments regarding whether trial courts are required to hold a separate sentencing hearing before awarding the death penalty.
A separate hearing, the bench noted, ensures that death row convicts receive a “real and meaningful opportunity” to present mitigating circumstances. This matter has since been referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench, though a final ruling remains pending.
The Final Decision in Ramesh’s Case
In the case of Ramesh, the Supreme Court deemed the mitigating factors sufficiently compelling to overturn the death sentence. The bench commuted his sentence to life imprisonment, stating that he “shall now await his natural end, without remission, in the confines of a penitentiary.”
This judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s continued attempt to refine death penalty jurisprudence, but it also reinforces the need for a structured approach to assessing mitigating circumstances in capital sentencing. Unless concrete guidelines are established, the application of mitigating factors in death penalty cases is likely to remain inconsistent and unpredictable.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
READ MORE REPORTS ON DEATH PENALTY
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE