The Supreme Court has reiterated that the brutality of a crime cannot be the sole determinant in deciding whether to impose the death penalty, emphasizing the need to consider mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation of the convict.
In a recent case, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta commuted a man's death penalty to life imprisonment without remission in a case involving the rape and murder of a minor. The court observed that the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court had focused solely on the "brutality of the crime" when handing down the death penalty, without discussing any other relevant circumstances. The Supreme Court found this approach unsustainable, stating that the lower courts had failed to make any detailed reference to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the appellant. The High Court, while acknowledging the legal requirement to consider both types of circumstances, only addressed the brutality of the incident.
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of considering reports from the probation officer, jail administration, and psychological evaluations of the appellant. In this particular case, the reports indicated that the appellant's family condition was "very pathetic," and they earned their livelihood through labor work. The appellant had to start working at the age of twelve due to the socio-economic condition of his family, preventing him from attending school. Furthermore, he had good relations with other inmates and did not suffer from any psychiatric disturbances.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the brutality of the crime, noting that the man had lured innocent children to his dwelling, selected a victim, and let the others go. The prosecution's case relied on the recovery of the victim's body from the convict's hut, the "last seen theory," and DNA evidence. The court affirmed the conviction, stating that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, regarding the sentence, the court pointed out that the case was based on circumstantial evidence. Referring to a previous case, Mohd Farooq Abdul Gafur vs State of Maharashtra (2010), the court noted that primacy may be given to life imprisonment over the death penalty in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence.
Taking into account the mitigating circumstances and the "rarest of rare" category threshold, the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission, extending to the natural life of the appellant, instead of the death penalty. This decision underscores the court's stance that while the gruesome nature of a crime is a factor, it is not sufficient on its own to warrant a death sentence. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances, along with the possibility of the convict's reformation, must also be thoroughly examined.
The Supreme Court has, over time, played a critical role in regulating and limiting the use of the death penalty. While capital punishment remains in effect in many states and at the federal level, the court has emphasized that it should be reserved for the worst of crimes and applied in a restrained and limited manner. The court has also ruled that executing mentally retarded criminals is a cruel and unusual punishment, prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes capital punishment, viewing it as a denial of civil liberties and inconsistent with the fundamental values of a democratic system. The ACLU argues that the death penalty system is unfairly applied, with people of color being disproportionately affected. They also consider it a waste of taxpayer funds with no public safety benefit.
