New Delhi: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Vikram Nath has stayed the execution of the death sentence imposed on a man and his brother in a triple murder case by the Patna High Court in January.
Aman Singh and his brother Sonal Singh were convicted and sentenced to death for killing three relatives five years ago over a land dispute in Bihar’s Rohtas district.
“The execution of the death sentence of the appellants shall remain stayed pending the hearing and the final disposal of the appeal,” the bench, also comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi, said Monday. Significantly, the court pointed to a troubling trend where reports on mitigating and aggravating factors in death penalty cases were not being called for at early stages of proceedings.
While aggravating factors increase the severity of an act or the accused’s culpability, mitigating factors reduce it. For instance, while criminal history can be an aggravating factor, a prisoner’s good behaviour in prison could be a mitigating factor in deciding sentence.
“This omission creates a piquant situation in which such crucial material is for the first time sought only at the stage of appeal before this court, thereby causing a long gap and avoidable delay in collection of information essential for a proper, timely and informed determination on the question of sentence,” the court noted in its order, passing a slew of directions to be followed in such cases.
Delayed consideration of these factors undermines the very objective of a balanced sentencing process, and impedes the meaningful application of reformative principles, it noted.
Also Read: Why Madras HC set aside death sentence of man convicted of raping minor daughter
Why convict moved court
Through his counsel senior advocate Pramod Dubey, Aman Singh had moved the top court challenging an order passed by the Patna High Court on 22 January in which he and his sister were sentenced to death.
The victims were close relatives of Singh and his sibling and lived in the same house. A quarrel ensued among them over a disputed plot of agricultural land, culminating in sword attacks and fatal injuries to the relatives.
The trial court convicted the duo for murder, handing them the death sentence in May 2024—a decision upheld by the Patna High Court in January.
Putting the execution of the death sentence on hold, the apex court directed the Bihar government to place reports of all probation officers related to this case within 16 weeks, and directed the Superintendent of Prison (SP), Buxar Jail, to submit a record about the nature of work done by Singh in jail, along with details about his conduct and behaviour, within 16 weeks.
Besides this, the court directed the SP to carry out a psychological evaluation of the two brothers at the government medical hospital and to submit the report to the Bihar government’s standing counsel.
Significantly, the SC allowed two associates of the Square Circle Clinic, NALSAR University of Law, to have access to the duo at Buxar Jail so that they can conduct multiple interviews for gathering information relevant to their sentencing. Following this, the associates were directed to submit a Mitigation Investigation Report on behalf of the accused in 20 weeks.
These interviews, it said, will be carried out without the presence of prison officials or police staff, in separate spaces where the prison staff is not within earshot.
Also Read: Trial courts handed 128 death sentences in 2025, highest female convictions since 2016, says report
‘Lack of quality legal aid’
In a significant number of cases involving potential death sentences, the quality of defence afforded to the accused persons remains inadequate, which results in ineffective legal representation at crucial stages of the proceedings, the top court noted.
Such deficiencies are reflected in lackadaisical investigation and slackness in trial court proceedings, it noted. “There is hardly any attempt to collect data relating to mitigating and aggravating circumstances,” the SC said, adding that this deprives the court of a complete and balanced perspective necessary for a just determination and imposition of sentence.
Noting that the absence of an effective and competent prosecution undermines not just the fairness of the process but also increases the risk of a disproportionate, unjust and uniformed sentence, it said that there is a need to strengthen the legal aid framework in such cases too. This can be done by adequately resourced legal representation so the accused is meaningfully given legal assistance, it said.
For these reasons, the court found it fit to pass a slew of directions to deal with such cases which involved potential death sentences. These included a direction to the trial court calling for a report relating to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances as a matter of course, before determining the sentence of the convict.
If such a report has been called for by a trial court, high courts must mandatorily call for the same while admitting such cases, the court said.
The authorities concerned shall ensure that such reports are comprehensive, duly verified and given with a stipulated timeframe to avoid any delay in the adjudication process, and to aid and enable the courts to undertake a meaningful, informed and constitutionally compliant sentencing exercise.
The court must give adequate opportunity to the parties to give their oral arguments, the bench noted, adding that if the trial court finds the reports to be ineffective or lacking in proper details, high courts can call for fresh reports.
Finally, the bench said that in every sentence confirmation brought before the high courts or Supreme Court, the legal services committee shall assign a legal team with one senior counsel and at least two advocates with a minimum of seven years practice experience to represent the convicts.
Such representation must be provided, regardless of whether the convict has engaged private counsel or not, it ruled while pointing to the need for a balanced approach which takes into account the possibilities of reformation and rehabilitation.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)
Also Read: Hanging to lethal injection—how India executes death row convicts, what a new plea demands