1. Death row convict — Petition under Article 32 — Reconsideration of final death sentence — Subsequent sentencing guidelines — New medical evidence regarding mental health and intellectual disability. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1268
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Vasanta Sampat Dupare – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 371 of 2023
Decided on : 25-08-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Mr. Aman Prasad, Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, AOR Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Mr. Tushar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Pradyut Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Ayesha Choudhary, Adv. Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr.tyagi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr./Ms. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Ms. Nikita Capoor, Adv. Mr. Subramaniam, Adv. Ms. Ritika Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Agrmaa Singh, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Karnik, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Sakhadande, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nipun Katyal, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Surya Pratap Singh Rana, Adv. Mr. Manan Sharma, Adv.
For the Parties :Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Mr. Aman Prasad, Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, AOR Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Mr. Tushar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Pradyut Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Ayesha Choudhary, Adv. Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr.tyagi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr./Ms. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Ms. Nikita Capoor, Adv. Mr. Subramaniam, Adv. Ms. Ritika Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Agrmaa Singh, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Karnik, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Sakhadande, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nipun Katyal, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Surya Pratap Singh Rana, Adv. Mr. Manan Sharma, Adv.
Important Points
Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to reopen the sentencing stage of a final death sentence to ensure compliance with the Manoj guidelines. This protects the fundamental rights to individualized sentencing and fair procedure under Articles 14 and 21, as judicial declarations generally operate retrospectively.
Subject
Criminal Law - Death Penalty
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.136, Art.14, Art.141, Art.142, Art.161, Art.21, Art.32
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.201, S.302, S.363, S.367, S.376(2)(f)
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.201, S.302, S.363, S.367, S.376(2)(f)
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Capital punishment - Mechanisms of fairness and procedural safeguards demanded in death penalty cases reaffirmed in Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 - Court emphasizes that justice must align with dignity, equality, and due process in sentencing. (Paras 1, 5, 9-10, 60)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contests the death sentence upheld by the Supreme Court in light of evolving guidelines for capital punishment, arguing the processes leading to this penalty did not honor requisite fairness standards, including the denial of effective legal representation during trial and appeals. (Paras 2, 3.1-3.6)
Findings of Court:
Court establishes that Article 32 remains a pathway to ensure protection of fundamental rights even post-finality of a death sentence; absence of compliance with laid down procedural safeguards in Manoj (supra) necessitates remand for proper sentencing hearing. (Paras 30-31, 59)
Issues: Whether the procedural provisions mandated in recent jurisprudence can be applied retroactively to a finalized death sentence to address fairness and due process issues. (Paras 10-12, 46)
Ratio Decidendi: Court finds procedural safeguards introduced must be respected and recommends a reevaluation of the sentence in compliance with these guidelines, acknowledging the overarching principles of life, dignity, and non-instrumentalization of individuals in justice administration. (Paras 1, 19, 28-29)
Result: Writ Petition allowed; death sentence set aside and remitted for fresh sentencing hearing pursuant to the standards set in Manoj (supra). (Paras 30, 34)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contests the death sentence upheld by the Supreme Court in light of evolving guidelines for capital punishment, arguing the processes leading to this penalty did not honor requisite fairness standards, including the denial of effective legal representation during trial and appeals. (Paras 2, 3.1-3.6)
Findings of Court:
Court establishes that Article 32 remains a pathway to ensure protection of fundamental rights even post-finality of a death sentence; absence of compliance with laid down procedural safeguards in Manoj (supra) necessitates remand for proper sentencing hearing. (Paras 30-31, 59)
Issues: Whether the procedural provisions mandated in recent jurisprudence can be applied retroactively to a finalized death sentence to address fairness and due process issues. (Paras 10-12, 46)
Ratio Decidendi: Court finds procedural safeguards introduced must be respected and recommends a reevaluation of the sentence in compliance with these guidelines, acknowledging the overarching principles of life, dignity, and non-instrumentalization of individuals in justice administration. (Paras 1, 19, 28-29)
Result: Writ Petition allowed; death sentence set aside and remitted for fresh sentencing hearing pursuant to the standards set in Manoj (supra). (Paras 30, 34)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Capital punishment requires rigorous constitutional scrutiny; procedural finality must yield to fundamental rights; judicial declarations on sentencing protocols operate retrospectively to ensure individualized justice. (Para 1 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 )
3. Article 32 empowers the Court to reopen the sentencing stage of a final death sentence to ensure compliance with mandated procedural safeguards for individualized sentencing. (Para 31 , 54 , 58 )
4. Writ petition allowed — Death sentence set aside — Matter remitted for fresh sentencing hearing in conformity with mandated guidelines. (Para 30 , 34 )
5. Do judicial guidelines regarding sentencing protocols apply retrospectively to convicts whose sentences have attained finality?
Yes. Based on the Blackstonian theory, judicial decisions are declaratory and uncover existing legal principles rather than creating new law. Therefore, judgments of constitutional courts are presumed to operate retrospectively unless expressly limited, ensuring that fundamental rights to fair procedure are protected. (Para 46 , 47 , 50 , 54 )
6. Can a petition under Article 32 be maintained to challenge a death sentence after the dismissal of review and mercy petitions?
Yes. In capital cases, Article 32 serves as a continuing safeguard. Because death is irreversible, the Court may revisit final orders to prevent manifest injustice or remedy breaches of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21, overriding formal procedural finality. (Para 13 , 17 , 18 , 56 , 58 )
7. What is the constitutional significance of individualized sentencing in capital punishment cases?
Individualized sentencing—considering the offender's social, economic, and psychological background—is an indispensable component of a fair trial. It ensures that the punishment is proportionate and tailored, fulfilling the mandates of equality and due process under Articles 14 and 21. (Para 21 , 22 , 39 , 45 )
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The majesty of our Constitution lies not in the might of the State but in its restraint. When the Court contemplates the ultimate punishment, i.e. the Capital Punishment, it enters a domain where justice must be tempered by conscience and guided by the unwavering promises of equality, dignity and fair procedure. A Constitution that proclaims liberty and dignity as its first commitments cannot permit the State to end a human life unless every safeguard of fairness has been honoured and every civilising impulse of the law has been heard. The question is never only what penalty a crime might merit, it is first whether the machinery of the Republic has honoured every safeguard that makes punishment lawful in a constitutional democracy. In the narrow space between guilt and the gallows, a robust Constitution demands that we pause, look again, and ask whether the process itself has measured up to the high bar that humanity and the rule of law together set.
2. The present writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, assails the continuing validity of the sentence of death affirmed against the Petitioner, and seeks its reconsideration in the light of subsequent legislative and judicial developments, particularly with reference to the guidelines laid down in the case of Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353.
3. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows:
3.1 The prosecution case in brief is that on 03.04.2008, the Petitioner allegedly lured a four-year-old girl away from her home in Wadi, Nagpur, transported her to a secluded spot, thereafter, sexually assaulted and strangled her to death and then attempted to conceal the body among nearby shrubs. An FIR (Crime No. 71 of 2008) was registered at Wadi Police Station the same day. The Petitioner was arrested on 04.04.2008, and a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 363 , 367, 376(2)(f), 302 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 18602[IPC].
3.2 On 29.09.2010 the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 252 of 20083[Trial Court] convicted the Petitioner under Sections 363 , 367, 376(2)(f), 302 and 201 of the IPC and, on the same day, imposed the death sentence on him. During the original trial, the Petitioner, who was unable to afford private counsel, was represented by legal-aid counsel whose absence on crucial dates resulted in four material witnesses remaining un-cross-examined.
3.3 In confirmation proceedings the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench4[High Court], by judgment dated 24.03.2011, set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the Petitioner had been denied an effective defence, and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of cross-examining the said witnesses.
3.4 Upon remand, the same legal-aid counsel represented the Petitioner. The four witnesses were cross-examined, but counsel was absent at the hearing on sentence. By judgment dated 23.02.2012, the Trial Court again convicted the Petitioner of the aforesaid offences and re-imposed the sentence of death, recording the Petitioner’s age being around 45 years at the time of the incident and family dependants as mitigating circumstances.
3.5 On 27.03.2012, the High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2012 and Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2012, affirmed both conviction and sentence, relying principally on the nature and manner of the crime and finding no sufficient mitigating factors.
3.6 This Court, by judgment dated 26.11.2014 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2486-2487 of 2014, dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal, and confirmed the death sentence as the only mitigation circumstances placed before this Court at that time were related to the Petitioner’s youth and the probability of reformation.
3.7 Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 637-638 of 2015 was thereafter filed. Pursuant to order dated 31.08.2016, the Petitioner placed limited additional material regarding his education, prison activities and disciplinary record. By j
