Accused X vs. State of Maharashtra

Does mental health be a basis for reduction of punishment after conviction?

Introduction

The facts of a judgment that created history in the legal system by highlighting the importance of mental health post-conviction are as follows: –

It is not a new thing for legal professionals to come across aspects where law and morality are twisted in the manner to address social issues of the society. The facts of the matter that we will be discussing in our upcoming paragraph has been declared as crime that happens in the “rarest of the rare case” by the trial court who gave death penalty to the wrong doer. The present case happens to be an appeal in the Apex Court by the offender (Petitioner) who was residing in an area near the victim’s (defendant) house who are 2 minor girls. The petitioner met both girls at a shop close to their houses and asked both minor girls to join him by enticing them for sweets. As per the villagers against whom the petitioner confessed that he raped & murder both girls and threw one body in the well and another in a local bamboo area. His confession was confirmed by belonging like bangles, blood, partially burnt bidis etc. found on the crime site.[1]

The trial court gave death punishment and held that such crimes happen in rarest of the rare cases, High court and Supreme court also upheld the verdict of trail court. A review petition was filed by the offender’s counsel, but it was dismissed by circulation. However, in the case of Mohd. Arif v. Supreme Court of India, an order was passed for reopening of the review petition that were dismissed that way. Where the counsel on behalf of petitioner (accused) pleaded for the reduction of punishment on the grounds of mental illness caused by inexecution of punishment for 17 years.[2] Hence, Supreme Court decided to hear the review petition orally in the open Court.[3]

Role of mental illness

Mental illness can be caused due to several reasons, one of them is the delay in execution where stress and anxiety are the by-product suffered by accused. Several judgments were mentioned in the present case where in the Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India it was held that execution of mentally unfit individuals violates the principle of life and dignity. Various guidelines were passed mandating appropriate medication is provided to the prisoners at regular intervals and only fit ones are executed. This area was supported by the judgment in T.V. Vatheeswaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein Apex Court observed that prisoners are becoming victim of various difficulties and suffering while awaiting execution.[4]

The Supreme court mentioned the Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, to explain the court that if an individual while committing crime is mentally unfit then the doctrine of rarest of the rare case will cease to apply. As the convict becomes the victim of mental illness, and the purpose of punishment gets prejudiced. This viewpoint of the Supreme Court (i.e. commutation of the death penalty in case of post-conviction mental illness) is in conformity with the growing nature of universal human rights jurisprudence.

Mental illness is not only necessary but as per the jury, the severeness of the illness will be considered to assess whether the accused qualifies to get exempted from the punishment. The ‘test of severity’ assumes that the offender is suffering from severe mental disability where the medical professionals would consider the seriousness based on the degree of understandability of the nature and reason of punishment. These mental disabilities generally include schizophrenia, other serious psychotic disorders, and dissociative disorders with schizophrenia.[5]

Opportunity for pre-sentence hearing

This case primarily was dismissed by circulation and later reopened after the Mohd. Arif v. Supreme Court of India case. According to the petitioner, as per section 235(2) of CrPC, the accused was not given sufficient time and opportunity to present their arguments that could have been reduced their punishment. Because the order of conviction and sentence were passed on same day, no chance of defence was given to prove their point, it violated the said section.

Purpose of Punishment

The meaning of the punishment is the feeling of guilt which is linked with the acknowledgement of the wrong one has done. Article 20 and 21 were also referred where the person about to get punished should be aware of the crime he/she has committed because if the person has lost the ability to judge the meaning behind its execution then the “reason d’etre” of the punishment diminishes. Article 21 under the Indian constitution offer ‘right to life’ to every human being. In addition to this a famous case Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India was referred that says that the wide scope of this article includes ‘capacity to understand’ which is crucial for understanding the reason of punishment. In addition, it mandates the communication regarding the capital punishment to the accused and the essence of article 21 is an inalienable right to live and die with dignity. Article 21 will be violated if the accused in the present case is hanged with such mental inability.[6]

Conclusion

If the order of reopening cases dismissed by circulation in the Mohd. Arif case might have not passed, then the present case could have ignored the significance of mental illness suffered by individuals waiting their execution. It also highlights the irregularities in the judiciary from the perspective of delayed judgment and irregularities in executive from the perspective of lack of proper medical assistance and treatment in the prison. There is a need to increase the importance of not just punishing the wrong doer but also take regards of the physical and mental well-being of prisoners awaiting their execution in 4 walls. Moreover, the complicated concept of post-conviction mental health should be followed keeping in mind the provisions of the constitution and respective statute. It is important that if the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then the judgment should be passed and executed within due time to avoid the unnecessary suffering for people attached to the case.

References

[1] Accused X vs The State Of Maharashtra, (2019) AIR S.C.C. 3031 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155869274/)

[2] Utkarsh Krishna, Accused X v. State of Maharashtra: Decoding the Complex Relationship Between Crime, Punishment, and Mental Illness, CCLSNLUJ (Nov., 30 2019), https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2019/11/30/accused-x-v-state-of-maharashtra-decoding-the-complex-relationship-between-crime-punishment-and-mental-illness/.

[3] Id at 1

[4] Supra note at 1

[5] Supra note at 1

[6] Krishna supra note at 2