In a pathbreaking ruling, the Supreme Court granted a writ petition filed under Article 32 by Vasanta Sampat Dupare, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for the horrific crime of raping and murdering a four-year-old girl. This decision was pivotal, as it called into question the immediate circumstances surrounding Dupare's sentence.

Background:

The case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra highlights a serious instance of criminal behavior involving the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of a young girl by a married man with a prior criminal record. The appellant, Vasanta Sampat Dupare, faced charges under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 302 (murder) and 376(2)(f) (rape of a minor), among others.

The trial court imposed a death sentence, which was upheld by the High Court and later confirmed by the Supreme Court of India.The key issue at hand is the suitability of the death penalty in this case, assessed according to the Supreme Court's established 'rarest of the rare' doctrine regarding capital punishment.

The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, considered challenges presented by Dupare and the State regarding the application of Article 32, especially in light of recent precedents in cases like Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) which dealt with mitigating circumstances in capital punishment cases.

The Apex court ruled, "Therefore, we hold that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers this Court in cases related to capital punishment to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to death penalty without ensuring that the guidelines mandated in Manoj were followed.

This corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the safeguards laid down in Manoj judgment in such cases, thereby ensuring that the condemned person is not deprived of the fundamental rights to equal treatment, individualized sentencing and fair procedure that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution secure to every person’’.

“We however add a word of caution. Article 32 of the Constitution is the bedrock of constitutional remedies but its exceptional scope cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters. Reopening will be reserved for only those cases where there is a clear, specific breach of the new procedural safeguards, as these breaches are so serious that if left uncorrected, they would undermine the accused person's basic rights like dignity and fair process."

While maintaining Dupare's conviction, the court set aside a previous 2017 view and has now called upon the  Chief Justice  of India BR Gavai to reassess the matter, particularly focusing on sentencing in line with the established directives from the Manoj case.

To provide some context, Dupare received his death sentence from an Additional Sessions Judge in Nagpur, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court. His attempts to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court were met with a reaffirmation of the High Court's position.

Despite a review petition being dismissed in 2017, both the Governor and President denied mercy pleas from Dupare in 2022 and 2023, leading to the current petition.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Dupare, urged the court to evaluate the applicability of guidelines from the Manoj case. Conversely, Maharashtra Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf raised objections against the Article 32 petition, asserting that it sought to contest a Supreme Court verdict that had already conclusively ruled in the matter.

In discussing the Manoj case, it was highlighted that a bench consisting of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M Trivedi mandated the evaluation of mitigating factors at the trial stage, emphasizing that the state must present evaluations addressing the psychological and psychiatric conditions of the accused.

The judgment is awaited.

Case Title: VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(Crl.) No. 371/2023