The Supreme Court in this case highlighted serious gaps in the sentencing process for death penalty cases. The appeals arose from a Patna High Court judgment confirming a death sentence, where the Court found that mitigating and aggravating factors were not properly collected at earlier stages. It noted that such reports are often gathered only at the Supreme Court level, leading to delay and incomplete sentencing analysis. The Court held that sentencing in death penalty cases must be individualised, evidence-based, and constitutionally compliant under Article 21. It emphasised that a fair trial includes fair sentencing, which requires a proper evaluation of both aggravating factors (nature and gravity of the crime) and mitigating factors (background, mental health, and possibility of reform). Recognising this as a systemic issue, the Court directed that trial courts must mandatorily collect mitigation and aggravation reports immediately after conviction. High Courts must also ensure such reports are available during death reference proceedings. The Court further stressed the importance of effective legal aid and ordered the constitution of dedicated defence teams in such cases. This judgment reinforces the “rarest of rare” doctrine and ensures that death penalty is imposed only after a thorough and balanced assessment of all relevant circumstances.