Two appeals filed by two convicts who were challenging their death sentences have raised some interesting issues. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M Trivedi clarified that the psychological evaluation of condemned prisoners by expert doctors, and access to them by mitigating investigators, are essential before the hearing begins on their appeals against the death sentence. The appeals were admitted and the execution of death sentence of the petitioner was stayed. The bench added: “However, we are of the view that the assessment as regards conduct of the accused, if made before the final submissions are advanced, will go a long way in rendering assistance.”
Since the accused had been awarded death sentence, in view of the Court, facets of the matter touching upon the character and behaviour of the accused would be essential in order to have complete assessment in the matter. In order to achieve this, the top court directed:
- The respondent-State shall place before the Court, the Report(s) of all the Probation Officer(s) relating to the accused before the next date of hearing.
- The Report of the Jail Administration about the nature of the work done by the appellant(s) while in jail be placed before the Court before the next date of hearing.
- The interest of justice also demands that the Court obtain a psychological evaluation of the appellant(s). The top court, therefore, directed the Director/Head, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Nashik, Maharashtra, to constitute a suitable team for psychological evaluation of the accused/appellant(s) in these cases and send a report before the next date of hearing.
- The Jail Authorities, Central Jail, Nashik, where the appellant(s) are presently lodged, shall render complete co-operation in facilitating access to and due evaluation of the appellant(s) in all respects.
- Ms. Katherine Deborah Joy and Ms. Baljeet Kaur linked to Project 39-A of the National Law University, Delhi be allowed to have access to the appellant(s) to submit an appropriate Report to the Court.
Project 39A is a Criminal Justice Research and Legal Aid Programme at the university that has worked extensively in death row cases. Since 2016, Project 39A annually releases a death penalty statistics report. According to its report, an overwhelming majority of death row prisoners interviewed (62.2%) had a mental illness and 11% had intellectual disability. The proportion of persons with mental illness and intellectual disability on death row is overwhelmingly higher than the proportion in the community population.
In the case of Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court held that mental illness of the prisoner would be a factor which would lead to a commutation and that no mentally ill person may be executed.
After hearing the parties on the question of conviction in Manoj & Ors. vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the apex court had adjourned the matter for submissions on sentencing, with directions eliciting reports from the probation officer, jail authorities, a trained psychiatrist and psychologist, etc., to assist the accused in presenting mitigating circumstances. The apprehensions relating to the absence of such a framework was also recorded in the final judgment of Manoj & Ors. vs State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein the importance of a separate hearing and the necessity of background analysis of the accused, was highlighted.
Noticing the lack of a uniform framework in this regard, the suo motu proceedings were initiated where the Supreme Court has indicated by its orders the necessity of working out the modalities of psychological evaluation, the stage of adducing evidence in order to highlight mitigating circumstances, and the need to build institutional capacity in this regard.
In May 2022, the apex court observed that the death sentences are most often imposed by the trial courts in a retributive manner and directed that the circumstances of the accused should be considered while the case is at trial stage. The Court has thus, talked of the practical guidelines to ensure that the mitigating circumstances of the accused are properly considered.
The bench has issued some practical guidelines to collect mitigating circumstances after due consideration:
- At the trial stage only, should the mitigating circumstances be considered.
- The court must elicit information from the accused and the state.
- A document or material should be produced by the state that discloses the psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.
- It should also be ensured that the additional information relating to family background, education, socio-economic background of the accused is collected by the state.
- The state, should collect certain information pertaining to the accused like:
a) Age;
b) Family matters like siblings, parents, protection by parents, the condition of family (abusive), any history of violence;
c) Current family background about surviving family members, marital status and kids;
d) Type and level of education;
e) Socio-economic background (including conditions of poverty or deprivation, if any);
f) Criminal antecedents (past records of any criminal activity);
g) Income and the kind of employment (whether none, or temporary or permanent etc);
h) Other factors such as history of unstable social behaviour, or mental or psychological ailment(s), alienation of the individual (with reasons, if any), etc.
The 262nd Report, speaks extensively to the penological justification of the death penalty. It finds that there is inconclusive evidence that this form of punishment has more of a deterrent effect, in comparison to life imprisonment. Dismissing the retributive theory of punishment on the ground that it suffers from lack of guidance on quantifying the punishment that would be appropriate to impose, it categorically states that:
“Capital punishment fails to achieve any constitutionally valid penological goals…In focusing on death penalty as the ultimate measure of justice to victims, the restorative and rehabilitative aspects of justice are lost sight of. Reliance on the death penalty diverts attention from other problems ailing the criminal justice system such as poor investigation, crime prevention and rights of victims of crime.”
Psychology deals with rational processes and activities of the organism in relation to his environment. Psychology is the systematic study of human behaviour under controlled state. Many undertrials remain in jail for a long span as they are unable to produce suitable sureties, or they have been denied bail due to the nature of the crime they have allegedly carried out. Prisoners live their life behind bars and this takes them away and puts them in an extremely bad moral environment for years at a time. Social organization in prison revolves around brutal prison gangs.
While the subject of psychological evaluation bind in with the subject of alleviating circumstances earlier enunciated by the apex court, it set in motion a dimension that resonates beyond the death penalty. The top court order views prisoners as human beings, assessing whose mental state could help in granting the most correct penalty. Psychological evaluation demands a change of approach and therefore a changed stress in the training of prison staff which is an important step in rationalizing the criminal justice system.
—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal Bureau