_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Accused 'X' vs the State of Maharashtra
Petitioner - Accused 'X'
Respondent - State of Maharashtra
Case Citation - Review Petition (Criminal) No. 301 of 2008
Bench - N.V. Ramana, J.
Relevant Sections -
Facts of the case -
The Two deceased, victim 1 (4th-grade student) and victim 2 (1st-grade student), were cousins living in Gulumb, Maharashtra, a place for homeless people (Beghar Vasti) in the house of Ramdas Jadhav (victim's father). The petitioner lived in a house near his family. On 13.12.1999, at around 6 pm, the petitioner had gone to a restaurant run by Sunil with his daughter, Reshma, where he met the two deceased girls, and with the intention of offering sweets, led the girls to accompany him. Afterward, he raped and killed both girls, threw victim 2's body in a well at Sakharam Bhiku Yadav's father's, and hid victim 1's body in a "kalkache bet" (a place where bamboo trees and small trees grow together thickly).
The Locals arrest the petitioner the next day, 14.12.1999, in front of whom he makes a legal confession regarding the murder of the victim 2. On the same day, he led police with the discovery of the bodies of the deceased and the discovery of the site of the rape commission, where land and plants with blood were found. The bloody clothes worn by the petitioner during his arrest were also confiscated.
The deceased's clothes were recovered during his time on 25.12.1999. The FIR was sent by Jaysing Dinkar Jadhav, the deceased's uncle. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner of supra charges in terms of 'final detention'; the motive of the respondent; seizure of blood-stained clothing worn by the respondent; a Chemical Analysis Report showing that the blood group "A" was found on the petitioner's shirt and on the nails of his hand, which was the blood group of both deceased; the discovery of the bodies of the deceased in the case of the accused; the acquisition of the location of a commission for the rape of the two victims in which the bloody land and other offenses were confiscated; unlawful confession of the petitioner; recovery of frocks in his example; and a false explanation given to the petitioner.
The Court of Appeal has found that all of these cases are from a complete chain of identification in the plaintiff's case. In Criminal Case No. 652 of 2001 and Conviction No. 3 of 2001, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence handed down by the Criminal Court, including the death penalty, subject to all the conditions as stated above without the additional conviction. Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2007, the court confirmed the same, stating that the case against him falls into the category of rare cases requiring the death penalty. Review Petition (Crl.) No. 301 of 2008 filed by the appellant against the above jurisdiction and order of this Court was overturned by a vide order dated 19.11.2008 by the same Judge Bench who had made the Judgment Judgment, which, after considering the matter in the media, ruled that there was no merit in this application.
Application for a variety of crimes in Crl. UMP. No. 5584 of 2015 was entered by the petitioner seeking re-opening of this application for review, setting out the reliance on the court's decision dated 02.09.2014 to W.P. (Crl.) No. 77 of 2014 at Mohd. Arif at Ashfaq v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, stated that in terms of article 21 of the Constitution of India, a review of appeals in the death penalty cases had to be heard orally by a three-judge Judge. As a result of the above decision, this court has heard the appeal application filed by the plaintiff orally in the open court.
Issue of the Case –
How can the case of sentencing for the mentally ill be investigated?
Is treatment better than punishment (for mentally ill people)?
Arguments of the Petitioner –
The fact that the Tribunal did not grant the petitioner a separate hearing during the sentencing, is in direct conflict with Section 235 (2) of CrPC, which provides for the right to a hearing as proved by this Court in Bachan Singh v. the State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and dozens of other resolutions.
The imposition of a death sentence on the petitioner is contrary to the criteria of the third decision of the Shatrughan Court Judge Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1, which was followed by a bench decision of this Court in Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 7 SCC 264, that stated that the killing of mentally ill people or insanity violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that mental illness or insanity may be a precautionary measure appropriate to commute capital punishment to life imprisonment.
Arguments of the Respondent –
The verdict of the Court of Appeal was not suspended simply because the sentence in the hearing was not made on a different date. To achieve this, the council relied on the decision of three judges of this Court in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. the State of Maharashtra, (2017) 6 SCC 631. He also pointed out that the petitioner does not have a mental illness in order to reverse the change. of the death penalty and brought some medical reports about it.
Judgment of the Case –
This case recognized that, in most cases, the reduction factors are related to the criminal, and the causal factors are related to the crime committed. These mitigation factors include considerations such as the suspect's age, social and economic status, etc. They recognized that the land claimed by 'defendant X' arises from a long gap in crime and sentencing. Therefore, the adjustment of the insertion similar to the reducing object does not correspond to the equilibrium of the case. Instead, the general amendment is based on the Constitution and on the law of the doctrine of the 'shortage of supernatural doctrine'. It has now been established that the death penalty can only be imposed in very rare cases, which requires full consideration of the circumstances. With this in mind, they should examine the inclusion of mental illness after believing it as a determining factor of 'disqualification' as a very rare case. Sentencing usually involves deprivation of liberty. Under Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to life and liberty may not be inflicted unless it is upheld by the laws.
In this regard, the ruling is concerned about the death penalty, which inevitably affects the right to life and provides us with various procedural protections under our system of justice. The basic premise of the right to life is 'dignity.' The right to human dignity comes in a variety of colours. For the purpose of this case, human dignity is like the power of understanding, rational choice, and free will that goes hand in hand with personality, etc. Instead, it is located across the prison gates and works until it breathes for the last time. In the case of mentally ill prisoners, it is appropriate to mention that Section 20 (1) of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, Act No. 10 of 2017, clearly stated that 'everyone with a mental illness will have the right to live a dignified life.
All people have the ability to be born naturally even though, because of childhood, disability, or mental retardation, they may not currently, or not, be able to use them anymore. In the event of such a disability, the person may not be in a position to understand the consequences of his or her actions and the outcome. In this case, the execution of such a person could reduce the law.
In line with the discussion above, the court pointed out that there seems to be no setback/impairment of diagnosing 'severe mental illness. However, a 'sharp test' can be a guide for identifying those mental illnesses that need to be released. Therefore, the test considered here states that the perpetrator must have a mental illness or a serious disability, which means that a medical professional may view the disease as very serious so that he or she cannot the nature and purpose of such punishment. These diseases often include schizophrenia, other serious mental illnesses, and dissociative disorders with schizophrenia.
Adherence to directions should be followed in the future as a result of the above discussion-
That serious illness after the conviction will be a relief to the appellate court, in appropriate cases, which must be considered when sentencing the respondent to the death penalty.
The diagnosis of such a disability should be performed by a team that specializes in trained specialists (experienced doctors, criminologists, etc.), including professionals with knowledge of the respondent's specific mental illness.
The burden is on the defendant to prove inconsistent with clear evidence that he has a serious mental illness. The defendant must show functional, residual, and deformed symptoms that indicated significant mental retardation.
The state may provide evidence to refute such claims.
The court may, in appropriate cases, establish a tribunal to send an expert report.
The 'difficulty test' contemplated herein implies that the offender must be mentally ill or severely disabled, which means that obviously, the illness needs to be so serious that the respondent cannot understand or understand the nature and purpose of this punishment.
Having said that, it should be noted that the respondent has submitted a report to Class 1 Psychiatrist, Jerawada Central Prison, indicating that he has a certain mental illness without giving any reasons for such an examination.
According to the above discussion, the petition was allowed to the extent that the death sentence given to the petitioner is commuted to imprisonment for the remainder of his or her life without the right to pardon.
In addition, the situation of 'suspect X' compels the state to act as parens patriae. In this case, 'respondent X' cannot be ignored and left to rot. To address this, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The Act seeks to provide mental health facilities to those in need, including prisoners.
Related Case Laws -
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Do Mentally-ill People Have Any Right? " by clicking the button below.
Comments