A new track for capital punishment jurisprudence
The HinduA recent trend in the evolution of jurisprudence around the death penalty in India may reset judicial thinking around sentencing and have long-term ramifications in the awarding of capital punishment. The Court has also initiated a suo motu writ petition to delve deep into these issues on key aspects surrounding our understanding of death penalty sentencing. Building on this, the Court, in Mofil Khan vs State of Jharkhand, held that the “the State is under a duty to procure evidence to establish that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused” and that “the Court will have to highlight clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme.” Undoubtedly, the onus has been placed on the State to lead evidence to show that no reformation is possible and for the sentencing courts to be satisfied that a thorough mitigation analysis was done before the death sentence is awarded. The entire judicial exercise that has culminated in the institution of the suo motu writ petition will only go to strengthening the doctrine of the rarest of rare, as laid down in the Bachan Singh case and, thereby, reinstating fairness in the death penalty sentencing exercise.