Is Post Convictional mental illness a mitigating factor?

Sridhruti Chitrapu | 24th November 2019

Introduction 

Death sentence is awarded in the rarest of rare cases. It is given in certain exceptional cases after examining the aggravating and mitigating factors. In cases where there are mitigating factors an alternative punishment can be awarded. The main point of discussion here is whether post convictional mental illness is considered to be a mitigating factor. This was elaborately explained in the latest judgement of the apex court in the case of ‘X’ vs State of Maharashtra. 

Facts

The petitioner in the instant case was convicted of charges under 201, 363, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was accused of rape of two minor girls aged 6 years and 9 years and concealing their bodies. He was sentenced two years of rigorous imprisonment for concealing the evidence and ten years of rigorous imprisonment for rape. He was awarded death sentence for the offence of murder amounting to culpable homicide. The High Court and the Supreme Court also confirmed the conviction given by the Trial Court. The questions that raised during the pendency of this trial were concerning the relationship between mental illness and crime. How can culpability be assessed for sentencing those with mental illness? Is treatment better suited than punishment. It was contended by the counsel for the accused that execution of persons suffering from mental illness or insanity violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and that such mental illness or insanity would be a supervening circumstance meriting commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. 

Held

Section 235(2) provides the accused with an opportunity to argue for imposition of a lesser sentence based on such mitigating factors as brought to the notice of the court, the basic object of this section is to provide an opportunity for the accused to adduce mitigating circumstances. While coming to the conclusion the court decided that the manner and magnitude of the crime of the crime outweighed the mitigating circumstances. The court also took into consideration his two prior convictions for similar offences.  The factum of these convictions was not contested by the petitioner. It is to be understood that as the term itself suggests that post convictional mental illness develops only after being proven guilty. It is a well-known fact that the conditions in prisons are not taking a toll on the mental health of the prisoners and due to the lack of awareness of such conditions their mental health keeps degrading day by day. The contention in favour of such prisoners is that, is it justified to impose death penalty upon such individuals who have impaired their ability to even understand the nature and purpose of such punishment and the reasons for such imposition?

It was opined that, all human beings possess the capacities inherent in their nature even though, because of infancy, disability, or senility, they may not yet, not now, or no longer have the ability to exercise them. When such disability occurs, a person may not be in a position to understand the implication of his actions and the consequences it entails. In this situation, the execution of such a person would lower the majesty of law. If the accused is not able to understand the impact and purpose of his execution, because of his disability, then the raison d’etre for the execution itself collapses. Post convictional mental illness is recognised as a mitigating factor in a case of death penalty. The test for recognising an accused eligible for such mitigating factors must be met with to invoke this defence. It is necessary for the court to provide for a test wherein only in extreme cases of convicts being mentally ill are not executed. The honourable court has given certain directions in the course of this judgement which are to be followed in any of the future cases regarding this subject matter. They are:

1. Post convictional mental illness will be a mitigating factor that the appellate court needs to consider in certain cases. 
2. Such an assessment must be conducted by qualified professionals.
3. The burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate the severity of the mental illness. 
4. The state may provide evidence to rebut such a claim. 
5. The court must set up a panel to submit an expert report.
6. A test of severity must be conducted. 

In the instant case it was held that the mental state of the accused is severe enough to not impose death penalty but his previous behaviour have been indicative of him being a threat to society due to which the court ordered him to spend the reminder of his life in the confines of the prison.