上一步 7 / 26 下一步

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 Friday, December 15, 2023 Printed For: Nadia Shalin, National Law University, Dwarka SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2023 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

選擇目標文字3

● ● ●

Mohd. Mannan

案件摘要

司法管轄

印度

國籍

印度人

案件標題: Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar

作案時年齡: 42

作案時年齡組: 成年人 (18至59歲)

性别: 男性

犯罪時的宗教信仰: 伊斯蘭教

弱勢 / 邊緣群體身份

少數群體: 宗教

司法轄區 - 地理定位

緯度: 20.5937

經度: 78.9629

司法轄區 - 地理定位 (已連結案件摘要): 印度

瑞慈合作機構

The Square Circle Clinic (印度)

該國最新死刑狀態

保留死刑

案件現狀: 已結案: 減刑

判處死刑年份: 2000s: 2007

執行方式: 絞刑

涉嫌侵犯的權利

公正審判與正當程序權利: 上訴權
公正審判與正當程序權利: 在各階段獲得充分法律代理的權利
公正審判與正當程序權利: 處罰過重或不成比例

死刑所涉罪名的性質

性暴力: Rape
謀殺: 一名受害者

專家證據

減刑專家
心理健康: 精神科醫生

案件背景 (最多300字): The accused allegedly kidnapped, raped, and murdered a minor girl.

The key circumstances against the accused are: last seen evidence; recovery evidence (victim’s body); extra judicial confession; and post-mortem report (suggests victim was raped and murdered). The Trial Court had convicted the accused and sentenced him to death on 29.05.2007. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court on 19.08.2008. The Supreme Court, via a two judge bench, upheld the sentence and conviction. A review petitioner before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 24.08.2011. However, since a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court ruled that death sentences should be heard by a 3 judge bench, this specific review petition was permitted to be opened. The Supreme Court, in disposing of the reopened review petition, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment till natural death without remission on 14.02.2019.

This case is particularly relevant as the Supreme Court recognises that mental illnesses can be a relevant factor, warranting commutation of a death sentence. The Court also acknowledged that adverse prison conditions and solitary confinement often causes prisoners to develop mental illnesses.

辯方意見 (最多200字): Defence arguments, limited to the question of sentencing, were the following: 1)The applicant had undergone 15 years in custody, and 11 years on death row. He was also lodged in virtual solitary confinement. 2)The Trial Court did not properly evaluate the material on record and considered the applicant to have had criminal antecedents for being accused in an unrelated trial. 3)The Trial Court did not give adequate opportunity to the accused for presenting mitigating circumstances for the question on sentencing. The legal aid provided to the accused inadequate and no effort was made to draw attention of the Court to the mitigating circumstances of the accused. 4)The brutality of crime, and age of the victim is not sufficient grounds to inflict the death sentence, and should not be considered among the “rarest of rare” cases. Further, the High Court’s assertion that the accused is a menace to society beyond the possibility of reform is unfounded. 5)The quality of evidence is a relevant factor in sentencing. The conviction was on the basis of circumstantial evidence (alleged extra judicial confession and recovery evidence), without any forensic evidence against the accused. 6)Mitigating circumstances were presented (socio-economic status, lack of access to education, medical conditions, familial dependents) 7)Based on psychiatric evaluation, the accused is suffering from mental illness resulting from near fatal injuries to the head, and prior medical history.

判决摘要 (最多200字)

The accused was effectively denied a fair hearing on sentencing as the Trial Court made no effort to elicit relevant facts nor give opportunity to the petitioner to place mitigating factors on record.
The accused was convicted and sentenced on the same day, against the principle established by the Court of conducting a bifurcated trial on conviction and sentencing. 3)Since the conviction was based on purely circumstantial evidence, it would be unsafe to uphold the imposition of the death sentence on the accused. 4)The Court took judicial notice of the accused’s psychiatric evaluation and acknowledged that the accused was virtually in solitary confinement while in custody. 5)For imposing the death sentence, the brutality or heinous nature of the crime alone cannot be the sole criterion. The Court must be satisfied that there exist no option other than death, with no possibility of reforming the accused. 6)There was no material to establish that the accused was incapable of reform, and that he would continue remaining a threat to society unless the death penalty be imposed. 7)The Court recognised that adverse prison conditions like solitary confinement often cause prisoners to develop mental illnesses. It has been established that mental illness is a relevant factor which warrants commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court held that the mental health of the prisoner at the time of execution is a relevant mitigating factor.

獲得法律代理的情況

第二次上訴階段: 公益律師
審判階段: 國家法律援助
上訴階段: 國家法律援助
偵查前階段: 未知

與罪名相關的立法: 354(3), 235- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

司法判例: Mohd. Arif and Ors. vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Ors. Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab Rajesh Kumar vs. State through Govt. of NCT of Delhi Santa Singh vs. The State of Punjab Dagdu and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra Machhi Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra Ajay Pandit and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab Panchhi and Ors. vs. State of UP Mukesh and Ors. vs. State for NCT of Delhi and Ors. Haru Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal Lehna vs. State of Haryana Shatrughan Chauhan and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration and Ors. Birju vs. State of M.P. Kalu Khan vs. State of Rajasthan Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan Ram Deo Prasad vs. State of Bihar Sushil Sharma vs. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi Swami Shraddananda vs. State of Karnataka Sebastian vs. State of Kerala Navneet Kaur vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Mulla and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

案件材料語言

英語

主要文檔

Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar (2019) 16 SCC 584.pdf
English
下載查看

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

選擇目標文字3

Mohd. Mannan

主要文檔

Notifications