Because a crime is exceptionally brutal or grotesque, the death penalty can be imposed only in cases where the possibility of a convict’s reformation is completely ruled out, the Supreme Court has held, underlining that the possibility of reform cannot be presumed absent merely.
Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi, the prosecution must establish that life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate as an alternative to capital punishment , and that the death sentence must be reserved for cases where the alternative of imprisonment for life is demonstrably foreclosed, according to a bench of justices Vikram Nath.
The court considered several mitigating circumstances, including the convict’s account of childhood deprivation and adult misfortune, the absence of previous criminal convictions, satisfactory conduct in custody, continuing family ties, his age of about 56 years and the nearly eight years he had spent in prison, including around seven under the shadow of a death sentence.
Court commutes death sentence in child rape-murder case
Applying this principle, the bench commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting his six-year-old stepdaughter and murdering her in 2018. The court, however, directed that he remain in prison for the remainder of his natural life, without the possibility of remission, holding that this was an appropriate punishment given the gravity of the crime. The judgment emphasised that the sentencing exercise must consider the circumstances of the offender alongside those of the crime, rather than allow the enormity of the offence to eclipse every mitigating factor.
In the present case, it said, the prosecution had failed to establish that the convict was beyond reform, while the material on his background and conduct in custody weighed against such a conclusion. The court said the death penalty was justified only when life imprisonment was “unquestionably foreclosed”.
