Supreme Court stays death sentence of man convicted for rape, murder of 3-year-old; allows psychological examination The Court also allowed a representative of anti-death penalty body, Project 39A of National Law University, Delhi to visit the convict to conduct a psychological assessment relevant to his sentencing. The Supreme Court recently stayed the execution of a man on death row who had been convicted for rape and murder a three-year-old girl [Ramkirat Munilal Goud vs Maharashtra

Supreme Court stays death sentence of man convicted for rape, murder of 3-year-old; allows psychological examination
The Court also allowed a representative of anti-death penalty body, Project 39A of National Law University, Delhi to visit the convict to conduct a psychological assessment relevant to his sentencing.
The Supreme Court recently stayed the execution of a man on death row who had been convicted for rape and murder a three-year-old girl [Ramkirat Munilal Goud vs Maharashtra].

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud with Justices Hima Kohli and JB Pardiwala also allowed a representative of anti-death penalty body, Project 39A of National Law University, Delhi to visit the convict to conduct a psychological assessment relevant to his sentencing.

“The execution of the sentence of death shall remain suspended pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeals,” the Court said.

The Court placed reliance on the recent decision of the top court in Manoj vs Madhya Pradesh as well as other orders to issue the following directions:

– The respondent-State shall submit before the Court the report(s) of all the probation officers relating to the appellant within a period of eight weeks;

– The Superintendent of the Yerwada Central Jail shall submit a report regarding the nature of work which has been performed by the appellant while in jail and a report with regard to the conduct and behaviour of the appellant while in jail within a period of eight weeks;

– The head of Sassoon General Hospital, Pune shall constitute a suitable team for the purpose of carrying out a psychological evaluation of the appellant. The report of the evaluation shall be submitted to the Court through the Standing Counsel for the State of Maharashtra within a period of eight weeks; and

– Ms Nuriya Ansari is permitted to have access to the appellant who is presently lodged in Yerwada Central Jail, Pune to submit her report in regard to the psychological assessment of the appellant.

The appellant had moved the top court challenging his conviction and death-sentence handed down by a trial court in 2019, under various of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.

The Bombay High Court had upheld the same in 2021.

The top court’s order came in a miscellaneous application filed by Project 39A, seeking to send one of its representatives to conduct interviews of the appellant at Yerwada Central Jail, where he is lodged.

The interviews were towards a psychological assessment before a decision on his sentencing.

The registry of the Court was directed to transmit the order to the Maharashtra Standing Counsel for compliance by relevant authorities.

“All the reports shall be duly compiled and placed before this Court on the next date of hearing. The original records of the case be summoned from the trial court. Translated copies shall be made available to all the counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties,” the Court directed.

The Supreme Court had, in May, while commuting the death sentences of three murder convicts to life imprisonment for a minimum of 25 years, had emphasised that examining of the mitigating circumstances in cases involving brutal and publicly-sensitive crimes must be liberally and expansively done.

It had issued guidelines in this regard and held,

“There is urgent need to ensure that mitigating circumstances are considered at the trial stage, to avoid slipping into a retributive response to the brutality of the crime, as is noticeably the situation in a majority of cases reaching the appellate stage.”

The apex court had, in September, referred to a Constitution Bench the issue of framing guidelines on how and when mitigating circumstances are to be considered during trial in death penalty cases, observing,

“This Court is of the opinion that it is necessary to ensure a uniform approach on the question of granting real and meaningful opportunity, as opposed to a formal hearing, to the accused/convict, on the issue of sentence. Consequently, this court is of the view that a reference to a larger bench of five Hon’ble Judges is necessary for this purpose.”