Supreme Court says death penalty cannot stand unless convict’s reform is ruled out

The Supreme Court has held that the death penalty can be imposed only when the possibility of a convict’s reformation has been excluded and life imprisonment is demonstrably inadequate. The court stressed that the exceptional brutality of a crime, by itself, cannot establish that an offender is beyond redemption.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi made the observation while commuting the death sentence of Waris, a Madhya Pradesh man convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting and murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter in 2018.

The court instead ordered that he remain imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life, without the possibility of remission. It upheld his sentences for the other offences, directing that all substantive sentences run concurrently.

Brutality alone does not justify capital punishment

The court acknowledged the extreme gravity of the crime, including the killing of the child to prevent her sexual abuse from being disclosed. It described this as “instrumental silencing”, calling it an aggravating circumstance of the highest order because the murder not only compounded the sexual violation but also sought to destroy evidence and obstruct the administration of justice.

However, the bench said the gravity of the offence and the question of whether the offender can be reformed are distinct issues.

It held that even the most serious aggravating circumstance must be weighed against mitigating factors, particularly when the prosecution has not produced evidence establishing that the convict is incorrigible.

The court concluded that the crime satisfied the “crime test” at the extreme end, but the “criminal test” required for capital punishment was not established because the possibility of reformation remained open.

Convict gets whole-life imprisonment without remission

The court considered several factors in favour of commuting the sentence. Waris had no previous criminal convictions, his conduct in prison had been satisfactory and he retained family ties. He was around 56 years old and had spent almost eight years in custody, including about seven years under a death sentence.

A psychological evaluation also did not reveal any condition from which incorrigibility could be inferred. The state had not produced evidence that conclusively ruled out the possibility of his reform.

The Supreme Court therefore substituted the death sentence with imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, with no remission.

It described the punishment as one of the highest severity, second only to death, and said it would keep the convict behind bars for the rest of his life while retaining the possibility of reformation.

Trial court criticised for same-day sentencing

The Supreme Court also criticised the trial court for convicting and sentencing Waris to death on the same day without conducting a separate and meaningful hearing on the appropriate punishment.

The court subsequently obtained additional material concerning his social and psychological background and his conduct in prison before making its sentencing determination.

The ruling comes against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s broader emphasis this year on ensuring that mitigating circumstances are properly examined before a death sentence is imposed. In April, another bench led by the same three judges directed courts dealing with potential death sentences to obtain reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances before determining punishment.

Mother was sole eyewitness to crime

Waris was convicted under provisions of the Indian Penal Code dealing with rape, repeated rape, rape of a child below 12 years, murder and causing disappearance of evidence, as well as provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

The child’s mother was the prosecution’s sole eyewitness to the events inside the home. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction after examining her evidence along with medical and other material. The court also noted that the victim had suffered repeated sexual assault before being killed by throttling.

The court had earlier directed further cross-examination of the mother after finding a fair-trial concern arising from the manner in which her evidence had initially been tested. It ultimately found that the defect had been cured through the subsequent detailed cross-examination.

The bench said the mother’s testimony remained credible and was corroborated by medical evidence indicating homicidal death by throttling and fresh genital injuries consistent with sexual assault.

Death penalty reserved for cases where life imprisonment is foreclosed

The Supreme Court reiterated that capital punishment requires more than proof of an exceptionally grave offence. The prosecution must establish that the offender is beyond the possibility of reform and that an alternative sentence of imprisonment for life is unquestionably inadequate.

In this case, the court found that whole-life imprisonment without remission was available and sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

The bench accordingly held that the death penalty could not be sustained because the state had failed to exclude the possibility of Waris’s reformation.