Today, On 25th August, Supreme Court has ruled that even a death penalty confirmed by the top court can still be challenged through an Article 32 petition, as seen in the case of Vasanta Sampta Dupare where mitigating circumstances will be reconsidered.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ordered a re-evaluation of the death penalty imposed on a man convicted of raping and murdering a 4-year-old girl.
The Court accepted a petition from the convict and overturned its previous ruling from May 3, 2017, which had upheld the death sentence for Vasanta Sampta Dupare.
This ruling was issued by a Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta.
A new hearing will now determine his punishment.
Notably, this decision follows an Article 32 petition filed by Dupare, challenging the earlier verdict of the Supreme Court. The Court stated that in death penalty cases, its decisions can be revisited through Article 32 if the mandatory guidelines for imposing a death sentence have not been adhered to.
The new penalty will be decided in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Manoj v. State of MP, which requires a thorough examination of mitigating circumstances before sentencing.
The Court ordered,
“The sentence awarded by this Court on 3rd May is set aside and the matter is remitted to this Court for a fresh hearing on sentence alone to be conducted in conformity with Manoj Supra. The Registry is directed to place the matter before CJI for assignment to an appropriate bench,”
Dupare’s Article 32 petition sought the application of the 2022 Manoj judgment and requested that mitigating factors be considered prior to imposing a death sentence.
In its ruling today, the Supreme Court emphasized that Article 32 of the Constitution allows it to revisit issues at the sentencing stage in capital punishment cases where the mandatory guidelines for considering mitigating circumstances have not been followed.
However, the Court cautioned that the exceptional nature of Article 32 should not become a routine practice for reopening finalized cases.
The Court said,
“Reopening will be reserved for only those cases where there is breach of new procedural safeguards, as if breaches are so serious that if left uncorrected they would undermine the accused’s basic rights to life,”