Individualised Sentencing in Death Penalty Cases

Individualised sentencing means that punishment is chosen after considering not only the offence but also the offender's personal circumstances and capacity for reform. In death penalty cases, the court must conduct a separate, meaningful inquiry before concluding that the case falls within the rarest of rare category.

Constitutional and legal basis

Under Article 21, deprivation of life must follow a fair, just and reasonable procedure. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980, the Supreme Court held that life imprisonment is the rule and death is an exception, permissible only when the alternative is unquestionably foreclosed.

• A separate hearing on sentence is required under Section 258(2), BNSS, after conviction by a Court of Session.
• A death sentence requires recorded special reasons under Section 393(3), BNSS.

Meaningful mitigation inquiry

The sentencing hearing must provide adequate time and a genuine opportunity to present evidence about the offender. It cannot be reduced to oral submissions immediately following conviction.

• The court must examine age, family and social background, education, deprivation or abuse, mental and physical health, previous criminal record and other relevant circumstances.
• The inquiry must assess reformation and rehabilitation, using reliable material such as prison-conduct reports, probation information or expert assessments where necessary.
• In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022, the Supreme Court emphasised systematic collection of information relevant to mitigation.

Reasoned choice between life and death

The court must weigh the aggravating circumstances of the crime against mitigating circumstances relating to the criminal. As recognised in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1976, sentencing is a distinct judicial stage requiring a real hearing.

• The decision must explain why the mitigating evidence is insufficient and why life imprisonment is not an adequate punishment.
• The conclusion must rest on evidence and principled reasons, rather than the brutality of the offence alone or subjective judicial intuition.