In Brief
The Supreme Court held that after convicting an accused of a capital offence, courts must provide a separate, meaningful hearing on sentencing (not merely a formality). Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates this bifurcated trial. The Court found conflicting bench decisions: some require adjournment and time for the accused to present mitigating evidence; others permit same-day sentencing if a 'meaningful' opportunity exists or can be remedied on appeal. The Court noted that accused persons face inherent disadvantage, as prosecution aggravating evidence is already on record while mitigating factors can only be presented after conviction. Due to this conflicting jurisprudence and absence of uniform guidelines, the Court referred the matter to a larger five-judge bench to establish clear, consistent procedures ensuring fair and effective sentencing hearings in capital cases.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.