SC stayed the execution of a man on death row who was convicted of raping and killing a three-year-old girl.

Case: Ramkirat Munilal Goud vs Maharashtra
Bench: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud with Justices Hima Kohli and JB Pardiwala 

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court stayed the execution of a man on death row who was convicted of raping and killing a three-year-old girl.

Furthermore, the bench allowed a representative of Project 39A of National Law University, Delhi, to conduct a psychological assessment relevant to the convict's sentencing with the convict.

Following are the directions given by the Court in light of the recent ruling in Manoj vs Madhya Pradesh and other decisions:
•    Within eight weeks, the respondent-State shall submit before the Court the report(s) of all probation officers relating to the appellant;
•    Within eight weeks, the Superintendent of the Yerwada Central Jail shall submit a report on the nature and extent of the appellant's work while in prison, as well as his conduct and behaviour;
•    The head of Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, shall form a suitable team to evaluate the appellant psychologically. A report on the evaluation shall be submitted to the Court within eight weeks by the Standing Counsel for the State of Maharashtra; and
•    In order to submit her report concerning the appellant's psychological assessment, Ms Nuriya Ansari may visit the appellant who is presently lodged at the Yerwada Central Jail, Pune.t of the appellant.

The appellant had moved to the SC, challenging his death sentence given by a trial court in 2019. In 2021, the Bombay HC upheld the same.

Earlier this month, Project 39A filed a miscellaneous application with the top court, requesting the court send one of its representatives to interview the appellant at Yerwada Central Jail. The interviews were a psychological examination before a decision on his sentencing.

While commuting the death sentences of three murder convicts to life imprisonment for at least 25 years in May, the Supreme Court stressed that mitigating circumstances should be examined liberally and expansively in cases involving brutal and publicly sensitive crimes.