1

Analysis of Why Capital Punishment Still Exists in India

AUTHOR: SARTHAK TAGRA

Sap Id. 500071725

Roll No. R154218159

Course: BA-LLB (Hons, Criminal Specialization)

Batch: 1

DISSERTATION SYNOPSIS

Submitted under the guidance of: Ishan Maheshwari

This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES

SCHOOL OF LAW

Dehradun, 2022
 2

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the research work entitled on “ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
STILL EXITS IN INDIA” is the work done by SARTHAK TAGRA under my guidance and
supervision for the partial fulfillment of the requirement of BA LLB (Hons) at School of Law,
University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun.

PROF. ISHAN MAHESHWARI

Date – November 2022
 3

DECLARATION

I declare that the dissertation entitled “ ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STILL EXITS
IN INDIA” is the outcome of my own work conducted under the supervision of Mr. ISHAN
MAHESHWARI at School of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun.

I declare that the dissertation comprises only of my original work and due acknowledgement has
been made in the text to all other material used.

Word count of Dissertation- 15173

30 NOVEMBER 2022
 4

SYNOPSIS

INTRODUCTION

The issue of ‘death penalty’ has been an important subject matter of debate both domestically as well
as internationally. Whereas punishing for certain heinous crimes by death was prevalent in India
even historically, in recent times the morality associated with the act of taking of human life has
compelled various countries to abolish capital punishment and look for other alternatives which
serve both as a tool for castigating as well as atoning the wrong doer.

While in the Indian context also ‘death penalty’, as a means of punishment, has been much
deliberated over the years, in recent times, a spurt in crimes (such as the Nirbhaya case) which shock
the collective conscience of mankind, have forced the legislators to prescribe for death penalty
therefor.

By the way of the present paper/ dissertation, certain key aspects around death penalty have been
highlighted which inter alia include the history, execution methods, international perspective, the
challenge to constitutionality thereof in India, essential safeguards against death penalty in India, the
judicial precedents and recent developments.

In the ancient and medieval era, both in India as well as foreign civilizations, death penalty was
resorted to for punishing the offenders and repelling them from crime. However, gradually, with the
rule of law prevailing over arbitrary exercise of power for punishing the offenders, shift towards
abolition of death penalty and the same was echoed in the Charter of Right even by the United
Nations. While some countries have shunned the practice of capital punishment, it is still employed
in countries such as the United States of America and India.

In the Indian context, the modes of execution in case of death penalty are primarily hanging and, in
some cases, (mostly military) shooting. Given that death penalty entails taking of human life, to be
granted only in rarest of the rare cases for crimes related to murder, rape, treason, military offences
and certain other specified offenses. Furthermore, since fundamentally death penalty is indirect
contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution of India that guarantees ‘right to life’, there are
certain internal judicial safeguards against the death penalty in the nature of recording of reasons by
the courts, sentence being confirmed by High Courts, thorough scrutiny of evidence on record as
well as appeal before the Supreme Court and plea for clemency before the President of India. Also,
 5

whether the intention behind and the act of committing the crime invites capital punishment is also to
be looked into by the Courts. Exceptions to capital punishment include minor, pregnant women and
mentally disabled.

Furthermore, whereas the Courts in India have upheld the constitutionality of capital punishments In
India, owing to the inherent systemic problems in the judicial mechanism that result in inordinate
delay in execution of death sentences (often resulted by the exhaustion of legal remedies available to
the convict), the Courts have frowned upon such delays and in fact in certain cases also given
reprieve to convicts awaiting death.

In light of the aforesaid discussion, by way of the present paper, an attempt has been made to
highlight that whereas internationally there has been a shift away from capital punishment, some of
the recent amendments in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 such as insertion of Section 376A which
relates to reflect that the Indian society, represented by the elected legislature, still considers certain
crimes to be so heinous that they merit punishment by death.
LITERATURE REVIEW
 THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
“The infliction by due legal process of the penalty of death as a punishment for crime.
The Latins use the word capitalist (from caput, head) to describe that which related to life,
that by which life is endangered. They used the neuter form of this adjective, i.e., capitate,
substantively to denominate death, actual or civil, and banishment imposed by public
authority in consequence of crime. The idea of capital punishment is of great antiquity
and formed a part of the primal concepts of the human race.”

 FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTRE

“The death penalty is a sentencing option for over sixty offenses. In addition, The Federal
Death Penalty Act of 1994… established a procedure for conducting the sentencing phase
of a capital trial and set forth the prerequisites for imposing the death penalty, including
information on aggravating and mitigating factors and appointment of counsel.”

 History & crime – TARAN Deol, The Print

Muhammad Afzal was executed by holding tight ninth February 2013. He was executed
of the December 2001 assault on India's parliament in which nine individuals got
slaughtered by five shooters outfitted with firearms and explosives. Mohammad Ajmal
Amir Qasab, the main enduring shooter in 2008, was held tight 21 November 2012 for
different violations, including taking up arms against India, murder and psychological
militant acts. The utilization of any uncommon classification of dangerous to cause a
 6

blast that could jeopardize life or cause genuine harm to property is deserving of capital
punishment.

 Bar & Bench, Delay in Execution of Death Sentence- Tanya Thakur & Amit Kumar,
Nirbhaya Rape Case
According to a capital punishment report released in January 2018, there were supposed
to be 371 offenders looking for death records in India before the end of December 2017,
with the most numbered case dating from 1991, which is 27 years ago. In any event, just
four of the inmates facing the death penalty have been killed in the last thirteen years, one
of whom was an assailant of a little child and the other three for illegal intimidation.
According to the Law Commission of India's 2015 report on capital penalty, death row
convicts continue to face lengthy delays in preliminary hearings, bids, and finally, chief
pardon.

 AIR 1980, 2 SCC 684(Bachan Singh V State of Punjab)

The Court held that, in fixing the degree of punishment or making the choice of sentence
for various offences… the court should not confine its consideration ‘principally’ or
merely to the circumstances connected with the particular crime, but also give due
consideration to the circumstances of the criminal.” The Court concluded that, “A real
and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life
through law’s instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare
cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.”

SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

This study was undertaken with the objectives of elucidating the meaning of the death penalty,
investigating the many ways in which it is carried out in India, analyzing the circumstances in which
it is used, and gaining an understanding of how other countries feel about it. In this paper, I will
analyze the concerns surrounding the function of the death penalty within the context of the legal
system, as well as the viability of the death penalty as a remedy, in comparison to the existing
alternative of life in prison for the offender. I'll also touch on some related topics, such as how
successful the death penalty is in reducing recidivism and the ethical questions that are raised by the
debate over whether or not life sentences are preferable to the death penalty. In this documentation, I
will be covering all of the aspects of its introduction into Indian law and society, including all of its
pros and cons, as well as the extent of capital punishment in countries that still use it, particularly in
light of their responsibility to reserve it only for the most serious crimes.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
 7

• To have an understanding of the significance of the death penalty as well as its history.
• To determine whether or not a state actually requires the use of the death penalty.
• To investigate the different guises through which the death penalty is carried out in India.
• To study the use of the death penalty in cases and to be aware of international law.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• Why is capital punishment granted in the rarest of the rare case?
• Why capital punishment is not a relief for the Victim of the crime?
• From where the concept of Capital punishment was introduced in Indian Law?

HYPOTHESIS
- Abolishment of Capital Punishment in some countries leads to some heinous crimes for
which the criminals are not given the punishment they deserve.
- There must be a better solution to tackle with crimes for which capital punishments are given.

CHAPTERIZATION
1) INTRODUCTION
1.1) Meaning
1.2) Historical Aspects
1.3) Meaning
1.4) Types of Execution Methods
1.5) International Aspect
2) Death Penalty Scenario in India, USA and UK.
3) Delay in Execution of Death Sentences.
3.1) Causes for Delay in Execution of Death Sentences.
4) Constitutional Validity
5) Judicial Precedents
6) Conclusion and Remarks
 8

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to all those who provided me the possibility to
complete this dissertation. A special gratitude I give to Prof. Ishan Maheshwari, whose
contribution in stimulating suggestion and encouragement, helped me to coordinate my
dissertation titled “ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STILL EXITS IN INDIA”
especially in writing this dissertation.

Further I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial role of the library,
who gave me the permission to use all required equipment and the necessary materials to
complete the task. Special thanks go to my friends who helped me to assemble my parts and gave
suggestion about my dissertation on “ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STILL
EXITS IN INDIA”. Last but not the least; I would like to thank my parents who supported me
with all required resources. If provided in future more tasks, I would try to give my whole with
true dedication and responsibility.

You’re sincerely

SARTHAK TAGRA
 9

PART 1

INTRODUCTION

The act of putting an individual to death as a form of punishment for a particular

transgression following a judicial action is referred to as the death penalty. It can only be
carried out by the State and consequently, non-governmental organizations that claim to
have "executed" someone are technically guilty of homicide when they make such a claim.

However, in other countries, crimes such as dishonesty, extortion, infidelity, and assault
are all regarded to be capital offenses. In most cases, the death penalty is reserved for the
most heinous sorts of murdering.

The phrase "death penalty" originates from the Latin word for "head," from which we get
our modern English phrase. As with the word "beating," the term "whipping" originates
from the Latin word for the body. There are a number of nations around the world that still
practice the death penalty. According to Amnesty International, as of the month of May in
the year 2012, 141 countries had done away with the practice of capital punishment [BBC
INTERNATIONAL, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, and MARCH 2009].

HISTORICAL ASPECTS

When it came to repelling someone during the Mauryan Dynasty, one good deed gained
another, a hand for a hand, and so on. The latter rituals included a range of brutal forms of
punishment, including towing the body behind a horse, chopping off the head or any other
bodily part, and riding an elephant. These ritualistic elements were all performed
simultaneously. The first king in recorded history to enact criminal laws that provided for
the death penalty for anyone found guilty was King Hammurabi of Babylon. People were
executed in many various ways around the world, including the guillotine in France,
beheading in the Middle East, electric suffocation in Russia, and other methods. Execution
techniques like these and others were all fairly prevalent.

In medieval times, the practice of the death penalty was notorious for its high level of
cruelty. Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke are just a few of the well-known
philosophers who supported the use of the death penalty in their day. In the 1600s, people
believed that the rigorous testing hours, water, and other practices were the same as the
 10

death penalty. This text was successful in persuading many legislators of the pointlessness
and cruelty of the death penalty. During the reception of the French Penal Code in the year
1791, there was a heated debate about whether or not to do away with the practice of the
death penalty.

In the nineteenth century, well-known legal authorities such as Bentham and Romilly were
on record as supporting abolitionist beliefs. In 1846, Michigan was the first state to do
away with the practice of capital punishment, and in 1867, Venezuela and Portugal
followed suit. During the process of creating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
in 1948, its authors advocated for the abolition of the death penalty as a desirable
destination for all civilized nations. Is the death penalty, however, really the most ideal
form of punishment in this modern day of standardized laws and heightened awareness of
one's own inner voice? In spite of the efforts of a great number of organizations, the death
penalty is nevertheless carried out in a number of different nations.

In its Charter of Rights, the United Nations calls the death penalty or capital punishment a
horrifying tragedy. The Charter of Rights also mandates that member nations of the United
Nations to do away with the practice of the death penalty. In spite of the fact that Article
21 of the Constitution of India stipulates that the government has no other option but to
take the life of any individual, one of the countries that are members of the United Nations
(UN), namely India, has not done away with the practice of capital punishment. As a
consequence of this, India's general opposition to the moratorium on the death penalty in
both the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council has always been against the
goal, claiming that it conflicts with the country's legal law, which only permits executions
in the "rarest of the rare" circumstances. This is because India believes that the moratorium
violates the country's legal law.

MEANING

1
The Catholic Encyclopedia, a compilation of Catholic teachings and definitions originally
published in 1907, in an entry titled “Capital Punishment,” stated:

“The infliction by due legal process of the penalty of death as a punishment

for crime. The Latins use the word capitalist (from caput, head) to describe
1
THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
 11

that which related to life, that by which life is endangered. They used the
neuter form of this adjective, i.e., capitate, substantively to denominate death,
actual or civil, and banishment imposed by public authority in consequence
of crime. The idea of capital punishment is of great antiquity and formed a
part of the primal concepts of the human race.”

The Federal Judicial Center, in an April 2004 “Resource Guide for Managing Capital
Cases,” offered the following:

2
“The death penalty is a sentencing option for over sixty offenses. In addition,
The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994… established a procedure for
conducting the sentencing phase of a capital trial and set forth the
prerequisites for imposing the death penalty, including information on
aggravating and mitigating factors and appointment of counsel.”

Besides, the jury is needed to restore unique discoveries regarding the irritating elements.
The Federal Death Penalty Act gives that a finding of a legal exasperating variable must
be consistent, though a finding of an alleviating component might be made by a solitary
jury part. Additionally, the Act guides the jury to 'think about whether all the irritating
element or components found to exist adequately exceed all the relieving element or
elements found to exist to legitimize capital punishment.'

TYPES OF EXECUTION METHODS

Evolution of Execution Methods

1. Death by burning: This method of execution was used in the well-known case of Joan
of Arc, who was sentenced to death by consuming because she was a witch.

2. Wheel: The cycle can include an individual rolling a wheel filled with spikes on his
head or joining him to a haggle him down a slope.

3. Firing execution: The most well-known kind of execution during World War II, in
which a terminating crew is summoned, and the charged individual is connected to a
post before being executed.

2
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTRE
 12

4. Headman's Axe: This is a technique in which the killer places the convict's head on a
wooden stage and uses an axe to hack off the top of his head.

5. Guillotining: A type of execution popular during the French Revolution. The

procedure was designed by Dr. Joseph Guillotine, in which the accused person's head
was placed in a round aperture on a wooden square and an edge was lowered, cutting
the person's head off.

6. Gas chambers: The most well-known kind of execution in Nazi Germany, in which
Adolf Hitler's opponents were sent to horrific concentration camps. They were
transported to chambers where noxious gas would be used to kill the people.

Position of United States

The methods of execution that have been used the most frequently in the United States are
as follows: hanging, electric shock, the gas chamber, the firing squad, and deadly
injections. Even though the Supreme Court of USA has never ruled that any method of
death is unconstitutional, lower courts have decided that some execution methods do in
fact violate the law. It is possible that any decision made by the Supreme Court about
more experienced methods was delayed because of the widespread usage of fatal
injections as the favored method of execution in all states in this advanced age.

As a result of the unwillingness of pharmaceutical corporations to supply the

pharmaceuticals that are often used in fatal injections, a select number of governments
have begun to permit the use of alternative execution methods in cases where lethal
injections are not feasible. As a result of ongoing arguments in a number of states
regarding the execution procedure, a number of states have chosen to delay scheduled
executions, which has contributed to a general decrease in the application of the death
penalty.

Present Execution Methods in India

a. Hanging
 13

In India, all capital sentences are carried out via hanging. Following independence, Godse
was the first person to be executed by capital punishment in a long time because of
Mahatma Gandhi. The Supreme Court of India held that capital punishment be used only
in the most exceptional of circumstances.

The condemned person may be forced to stand on a trapdoor and fall a few meters until
the rope put around his neck stops him. Alternatively, the victim's head may be yanked
back sharply enough to break the neck with the assistance of a knot in the noose. The act
of suspending a condemned person from a gallows or crossbeam until they die of
asphyxiation is known as hanging, and it is one of the methods of capital punishment. The
practice of putting people to death by hanging is the subject of significant debate, and in
its report from 2015, the Law Commission advised that India transition away from this
method of execution and toward more contemporary forms of punishment.

In the case of Deena v. Union of India3, which took place in September 1983, the
constitutional validity of hanging as a method of execution was contested on the grounds
that it was a barbaric and inhumane method of execution that violated the person's right to
life. This argument was presented in support of the contention that hanging was an
unconstitutional method of execution.

After taking into account a wide range of historical factors as well as the findings of the
law commission, the court came to the conclusion that the practice of hanging as a form of
capital punishment constituted a fair, just and reasonable procedure within the meaning of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As a result, the Court ruled that this practice is
constitutional.

The use of hanging as a form of capital punishment was also challenged in in Rishi
Malhotra v. Union of India4, which was submitted in October of 2017. This case has
spurred discussion in various developed nations about whether or not they should abandon
the practice of hanging in favor of more contemporary forms of punishment. The concept
that an execution should be as speedy and painless as is humanly possible, with the
intended outcome being immediate unconsciousness followed by death, was also
investigated.
3
1983 AIR 1155, 1984 SCR (1) 1
4
Writ Petition (Criminal)No. 103/2019
 14

b. Shooting

Both hanging and gunshot are listed as legal execution tactics under the military court-
military system under the Army Act, 1950. While one of the methods of capital
punishment permitted by Indian law is hanging, however, the Army Act, Navy Act, and
Air Force Act permit execution by gunshot as an option. The court martial has the ability
to impose the death penalty under Section 34 of the Air Force Act, 1950 for any of the
offenses specified in Sections 34(a) through (o) of that statute. The military tribunal will
choose between execution by hanging and execution by gunshot. It's worth noting that the
Army and Navy Acts contain parallel provisions. A death sentence must conform to the
guidelines laid out in Section 163 of the Act.

DEATH PENALTY- INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

At least seventy countries in the world have either officially or de facto done away with
their use of the death sentence. There are still many nations in the world that have the
death penalty, particularly those that have large populations and administrations that are
authoritarian. In recent decades, a significant number of countries have either discontinued
the use of the death penalty or done away with it entirely, indicating a movement in public
sentiment away from the procedure. The United States of America, in contrast to some of
its closest allies and other democracies, has not abolished the use of the death penalty.

While death penalty is not expressly prohibited under international law, it is widely
considered to be a violation of fundamental human rights in the majority of countries. A
correct analysis of the Eighth Amendment's definition of what constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment should take into account the widespread application of the death
sentence in different jurisdictions around the world. Some of the judges on the Supreme
Court have used international law as an argument in support of their opinions regarding
the use of the death penalty, particularly in relation to specific groups of criminals such as
juvenile offenders.

Several jurisdictions and organizations throughout the world have studied the use of the
death sentence in criminal justice systems. [The United Nations High Commissioner for
the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights] The General Assembly of the United
Nations stated that a higher desire for sensible start is required when implementing the
 15

death penalty, and that this requirement should be followed by all countries. The
Economic and Social Council of the United Nations has stated that its member countries
have abolished the use of the death penalty. However, the Economic and Social Council
has also stated that those member countries that wish to maintain the use of the death
penalty must ensure that the respondents are provided with a speedy beginning. The vast
majority of nations that make up the European Union have done away with their use of the
death sentence. On the third of May in 2002, the thirteenth show to the European
Convention for the confirmation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was
available for the sign of part countries for the cancellation of capital discipline under any
and all situations. A number of different organizations shared the view that the death
penalty should be abolished. According to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which was drafted in 1948, and Article 7 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, which was drafted in 1966, no one will be subjected to torture
or any form of treatment or discipline that is severe, cruel, or humiliating. The death
sentence is referred to as a "brutal, rude, and corrupting discipline" in Article 3 of the
European Convention on Human Rights. This article also states that the death penalty
violates the primary fundamental freedoms of the accused.

In accordance with Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the provision
of benefits to the life, opportunities, and security of persons is necessary [Bangalore
University] In England, it was abolished in 1965 by the Murder (Abolition of the Death
Penalty) Act; nonetheless, close to the end of the eighteenth century, there were
approximately 200 offenses that warranted the death penalty.

India has consistently voiced its opposition to the United Nations' (UN) goal of reducing
the use of the death sentence, arguing that every UN member state possesses the sovereign
right to determine its own overall strategy of laws and appropriate legal restrictions. In
addition, the application of the death penalty is reserved for the most exceptional of
situations in India. For example, it may be carried out if the horrible crime was of such a
magnitude that it shatters the tranquil, tiny mind. The Secretary-General of the United
Nations has mentioned in his reports on the abolition of the death penalty that the
decisions of the Supreme Court of India have also attempted to limit the use of the death
penalty in cases, as well as to ensure the benefits of those who have been sentenced to
death. This was mentioned in the context of the Supreme Court of India's efforts to ensure
 16

the benefits of those who have been sentenced to death.

PART 2

POSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA

Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, no individual can be denied the "right to life"
that is guaranteed to every resident of India.

‘Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law’

CRIMES PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH SENTENCE

a) Extremely aggravating murder

[Center for Death Penalty Information]

According to section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the accused person is given the
death penalty. In the case Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India
held that the death penalty should only be used in the most exceptional of circumstances.

“Punishment for murder.—whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or

1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

b) Other crimes that result in death

In accordance with the Indian Penal Code, the penalty for committing murder in the
course of a furnished theft is the death penalty. If the victim is killed after being
kidnapped for financial gain, the perpetrators of the crime face the death penalty. On the
off event that it results in death, unlawful inclusion of composed material ought to be
punished with death. It is also a crime punishable by death to offer Sati to another person
or to assist in offering Sati to another person. According to the Indian Penal Code, a
person who commits a murder while committing a furnished theft is subject to the death
punishment. Sati submission or submission to another person is also punishable by death.
 17

c) Terrorism-related offenses resulting in death

Muhammad Afzal was executed by holding tight ninth February 2013. He was executed
of the December 2001 assault on India's parliament in which nine individuals got
slaughtered by five shooters outfitted with firearms and explosives. 5 Mohammad Ajmal
Amir Qasab, the main enduring shooter in 2008, was held tight 21 November 2012 for
different violations, including taking up arms against India, murder and psychological
militant acts. The utilization of any uncommon classification of dangerous to cause a
blast that could jeopardize life or cause genuine harm to property is deserving of capital
punishment.

a. Rape

An individual who delivers injury in a rape which brings about death or is left in a
"persevering vegetative state" might be rebuffed with death under the Criminal Law Act,
2013. Assaults are culpable with capital punishments. These progressions were forced
after clinical understudy Jyoti Singh Pandey's 2012 assault and passing in New Delhi.

As demonstrated by the 2018 Criminal Law Ordinance, a person who is committed for
attacking a youngster who is under 12 years of age may be sentenced to death or
delivered off prison for quite a while close by fine. The 2018 change also decides the
death penalty or life confinement for a youngster's attack more youthful than 12. These
movements to criminal law followed an eight-year-old youngster's attack and murder,
Asifa Bano, who set off a huge amount of political strife in Jammu and Kashmir State and
the country over.

b. Kidnapping

According to Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, grabbing without intent to
kill is a crime that calls for the death penalty. He will be at risk under this section in the
unlikely event that someone kidnaps someone and attempts to kill him while doing so,
resulting in the victim's death.

c. Drug dealing resulting in death

In the event that an individual indicted for a commission or endeavor to carry out, abet, or
criminal intrigue to perpetrate any of a scope of medication dealing offenses, or financing

5
History & crime – TARAN Deol, The Print
 18

of specific kinds and measures of opiate and psychotropic substances, the person can be
punished with death.

d. Treason

Capital punishment is given to any individual who is pursuing or attempting to take up

arms against the administration and helping Navy, Army, or Air Force officials, warriors,
or individuals to submit a revolt.

e. Military offenses

Abetment of attack, insurrection or endeavoring to allure pilot, trooper, the mariner from
his obligation and different offenses are deserving of death whenever submitted by an
individual from the Army or Navy or Air Force.

Other offenses resulting in death

 If an individual is involved with criminal connivance to perpetrate a capital offense is

deserving of death.
 Attempts to murder those condemned to life detainment are deserving of death if the
casualty is hurt by the endeavor.
 If an individual furnishes bogus proof with the information that it can prompt the
conviction of an individual having a place with planned station or clan for submitting
a capital offense based on such proof, will be rebuffed with capital punishment in the
event that it brings about the conviction and execution of an honest individual.

WHEN DEATH SENTENCE IS PASSED

1. Special Reasons
6
The court needs to record extraordinary purposes behind overwhelming capital punishment.

2. Confirmation by High Court

Court of meeting subsequent to passing a capital punishment will present the procedures to
the High Court, and the sentence will not be executed except if it is affirmed by the High
Court. The court passing the sentence will at that point submit the indicted individual to
imprison care under a warrant.

6
Mode of Execution of Death Sentence & Incidental Matters- Law Commission of India
 19

3. Enquiry and Additional Evidence

The high court would investigate into the matter and further look for additional evidence
upon honesty of the sentence given by the individual.

4. No order for confirmation

No structure for affirmation will be made until the period took into consideration favoring an
allure has lapsed, or if any allure is introduced inside such period, until such allure is
discarded.
For every condition so presented, the affirmation of the statement, or any new sentence or
request passed by the High Court, will when such court comprises of at least two appointed
authorities, be made, passed and marked by at any rate two of them.

EXCEPTIONS TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

a. Minor

As indicated by the law in India, a minor who is younger than 18 at the hour of carrying out a
wrongdoing isn't executed.

b. Pregnant Women

A pregnant women shall be granted with mercy if sentenced with death sentence after the
amendment in 2009.

c. Intellectually Disabled

As per the Indian Penal Code, an individual while perpetrating a wrongdoing who was
mentally unstable or can't comprehend the idea of the demonstration, at that point that
individual cannot be held subject under the law and can be sentenced with capital
punishment.7

[Srishthi Chawla's Critical Analysis of the Death Penalty in India]

According to the Indian Penal Code, a number of crimes, including criminal connivance,
murder, aiding and abetting insurrection, resisting psychological oppression, dacoity with
murder, and assault, are all punishable by the death penalty (IPC). The Indian Constitution

7
Ipleaders blogs
 20

allows for the President to exercise clemency in cases involving the death penalty. The High
Court is obligated to inquire as to the specifics of the Sessions Court's decision to allow a
convicted individual to be sentenced to death for a given set of circumstances. In point of
fact, even if the criminal takes their case there first, they still have the option of appealing
their case to the Supreme Court. In the event that this strategy is unsuccessful, the person who
was censured may submit a "thoughtfulness appeal" to the President of India and the
Governor of the State.

There are separate laws that govern how states should deal with requests for compassion
made by or on behalf of death row inmates, as well as offers made to the Supreme Court and
petitions made for special leave to speak before that court by death row inmates. According
to Article 72 of the Constitution of India, the President of India has the authority to grant
pardons, breaks, respites, or reductions in discipline to anyone who has been charged with a
crime. The President also has the authority to suspend, send, or reduce the punishment of
anyone who has been convicted of a crime.

Aside from the judicial system, no one will have their life or their individual freedom taken
away from them in any way. This implies that a person's life and freedom can be in danger
just due to the fact that they have committed a crime. In India, non-legislative organizations
are fighting for fundamental liberties and opposing harsh, corrupting, and heartless
punishment. The application of the guideline itself, as evidenced by numerous cases, is
infringing on constitutional arrangements. Despite the fact that the legal administration has
advanced the standard of "most uncommon of uncommon cases" and demonstrated that the
death penalty must be imposed only in exceptional and exasperating circumstances where the
offenses are grave in nature, the application of the guideline itself is infringing on
constitutional arrangements. The precarious position of those who are subject to the death
penalty is chilling when viewed in comparison to the situation in India. There have been a
number of studies carried out by a variety of institutions that have come to the conclusion that
passing inmates suffer from both emotional and bodily suffering while they wait for word on
what happened to them.

For example. Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar, who was charged in the 1993 Delhi bombing case,
suffered in prison until his death sentence commuted to life in 2014. The captives themselves
are "intellectually dead" while they wait for the day of their execution, which is in reality
 21

being postponed.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN USA

Life deprivation runs counter to libertarian principles that prioritise life and liberty as the
most essential fundamental rights. But despite being governed by the noble libertarian ideals,
the USA is a country that has not yet abolished the death penalty. Treason, extensive drug
trafficking, murder, attempted murder of a member of the judiciary, etc. occur frequently in
the USA.

For any crimes covered by Sections 794 (collecting or delivering defence information to a
foreign government) or 2381 (treason), the death penalty is enforced under Chapter 228 of
Title 18, United States Code; for an offence under Section 3593, the defendant must have
killed the victim intentionally, inflicted serious bodily harm that resulted in death,
participated intentionally in the act that directly resulted in the death of a person, or engaged
in violent behaviour with the intent to cause harm. The Section 3592 list of mitigating
circumstances for murder includes the defendant's diminished capacity to comprehend the
wrongfulness of the crime, extraordinary and significant coercion on the defendant, minor
degree of participation, equally responsible defendants, no prior criminal record, mental
disturbance, death with the victim's consent, and other circumstantial factors.

The constitutionality of it was a contentious issue in the US. The problems raised included its
unreliability, arbitrariness, unconscious delays, and the high rate of desertions in several US
states. Bias, incorrect convictions and exonerations, and other unreliable issues were present.
The effects of race, gender, and underfunding of capital defence were cited as justifications
for arbitrariness. The excessive latency of the execution was also raised as a problem because
it undermines its intended purpose. The selection of capital jury members is biased because
of the requirements set by the court. According to bias studies, a person's perspective on the
death penalty unquestionably has an impact on a case.

There was a lot of discussion about the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment in this context.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor shall excessive fines be assessed, nor shall cruel and
unusual punishments be administered," it says. Due to how this amendment was interpreted
in the Furman v. Georgia case, the death penalty was abolished in 1972.

In the USA, black people made up the majority of the punished. There are numerous causes
for this issue. The power of money and politics is the first. The attitude toward people of
colour is another. In situations involving capital punishment, the poor are denied access to a
free defence attorney when wealth and power allow the wealthy to escape punishment.
Another issue is that due to contextual factors, black people are more likely to commit serious
crimes like murder and widespread drug trafficking.
 22

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN UK.

UK is one of the 140 nations without a law prohibiting the death penalty. In India, things
were different even though Britain had a policy of only using the death penalty as a last
resort. The 1957 Homicide Act, which set a cap on the number of people who could be
executed each year, made British law more tolerant of the death penalty.

The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act of 1965, which later replaced it and only
allowed the death penalty to be used in four cases—treason, espionage, violent piracy, and
arson in a dockyard—limited the use of the death penalty. Not a single person was given the
death penalty after the last execution in 1964, which is noteworthy. Despite the fact that in
1964 the UK had laws allowing the death penalty. Even though the death penalty was legal in
the UK, it was not actually used there.

Capital Punishment was declared to be eliminated in the Sixth Protocol. However, a 2004
amendment act replaced it with the 13th Protocol, which eliminated the death penalty under
British law. The European Human Rights Commission's protocol clearly states that it is
"convinced that everyone's right to life is a fundamental value in a democratic society and
that the abolition of the death penalty is essential for the protection of this right and for the
full recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings."

But the murder problem is still important. Whether a murderer deserved to be put to death?
Even though abolitionism is supported globally, those who oppose this statute continue to
raise the same issue. In a British survey, 70% of participants indicated their support for the
death penalty. This makes the debate over the death penalty more complicated. A
consequentialist claim is that a person who committed serious crimes might still have a
criminal streak even after being released from prison.

One person dying can prevent thousands of people from dying. However, to ascertain
whether the query is accurate, only probability theories are employed. How can the legal
system be designed to punish behavior that may or may not occur in the future, particularly
when it causes death? This is the justification for the death penalty being abolished in the
UK. The only way to deny someone else their right to life in the UK is to:

- To carry out a lawful arrest or prevent the escape of a person who has been lawfully
detained.

- In order to protect any person from unlawful violence.

- In a legal action taken to put an end to a riot or insurrection8

8
Clause 2,Article 2,Schedule 1, Human Rights Act, 1998
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1 last accessed on 3rd October, 2020
 23

PART 3

DELAY IN EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCES

For a long time, the death penalty has been subject matter of debate. While opinions differ
on whether the death penalty should be used as a form of punishment at all, India is one of
the few countries that still uses the death penalty, albeit only for the most heinous of offenses.
In the event of an error, there is no going back from the punishment. This is primarily why,
when the death sentence is established, many protections at various levels are provided.
However, dissatisfaction emerges when the precautions entail excessive delay in
administering justice.

It is cause for alarm when criminal proceedings take 8 years to complete, as evidenced in the
2012 Delhi gang rape case (Nirbhaya case). In some circumstances, it can take much longer.
Even for death penalty offenses, swift justice and action are essential.

The law governing death row inmates currently stems from Supreme Court decisions in cases
such as Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India 9and Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of

9
1 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 55 OF 2013
 24

AP10. While Epuru Sudhakar gives the Supreme Court limited authority to evaluate mercy
petitions rejected by the President, Shatrughan Chauhan puts up principles to protect death-
row prisoners' right to life and personal liberty, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution.

To ensure a just, fair, and reasonable procedure, death row convicts must be provided with
legal aid, written notification of the rejection of a mercy petition to the convict and their
families, physical and mental health evaluations, a minimum 14-day notice prior to
execution, the opportunity for family members to meet them, and a mandatory post-execution
post mortem report (Maneka Gandhi judgment).

The excessive delay in the execution of the death penalty has frequently been a source of
concern for the general public in high-profile cases such as those of Mumbai terror attack
prisoner Ajmal Kasab, Parliament blast convict Afzal Guru, and, most recently, the 2012
Delhi rape case.

The Central Government has challenged the norms handed down by the Supreme Court in the
Shatrughan Chauhan case due to the delay in hanging the three convicts facing the death
penalty in the 2012 rape case. The case is significant not only because of its legal
ramifications, but also because of its tremendous sociopolitical influence.

Civil rights groups, political parties, and the general public have long called for harsh
punishments for sexual offenders implicated in the horrible crime of rape. In these conditions,
delaying the execution of gang rape prisoners comes at a high political cost.

The petition filed by the Centre seeks to shorten the time allowed for the convict to file a
curative petition, reduce the notice period to the convict and his/her family from 14 to 7 days,
and impose a time limit on the procedure to be followed in the case of multiple convicts
facing th the death penalty. The petition offers the Supreme Court an excellent opportunity to
strike a compromise between the rights of the accused and the rights of victims to seek
justice.

The first clarification requested in the petition concerns the time restriction within which a
death row defendant may file a curative petition if he so desires. The concept of curative

10
Writ Petition (crl.) 284-285 of 2005
 25

petition can be traced back to the Constitution Bench decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok
Hurra by the Supreme Court. The power, however, is to be used only in the most exceptional
of circumstances.

After the Supreme Court rejects a review petition, the last constitutional remedy available is a
curative petition. However, no time limit has been established for filing a curative petition. A
clarification on this point will not only assist the State in swiftly enforcing the punishment,
but will also assist convicts in obtaining an applicable remedy in a timely manner.

As witnessed in the Nirbhaya case, inmates continue to file curative pleas after death orders
are issued. This causes significant delays in the court system and contributes to the waste of
state resources. A timely filing of a curative petition will help to avoid unnecessary delays
and will improve executive and judicial efficiency.

As a result, it would be encouraging to see the Supreme Court take a step in this direction by
making curative petitions time-limited. In reality, it should be maintained that curative
petitions be time constrained not just in cases of death punishment, as asked in the petition at
hand, but also in curative petitions in general to ensure timely delivery of justice.

Nirbhaya: No stay on trial court judgment postponing prisoner’s executions; HC orders

convicts to exhaust all legal procedures within 7 days.

Second, the petition seeks to reduce the time between the date of notification of the denial of
the mercy petition and the date of execution from 14 to 7 days. The justification for granting
such a time period is moral rather than legal.

Compassion necessitates that a death row inmate be given time to mentally prepare for his or
her upcoming punishment, as well as a final encounter with his or her family members, given
that they may have to travel from remote areas. It also has legal ramifications, such as
allowing time to prepare a will and exercise any remaining judicial remedies. Though
shortening the time period may help to expedite the execution of the death penalty, it is not in
the best interests of justice.

The accused/convict deserves justice just as much as the victim. A reduction in the time
period may result in situations in which the death row offender is unable to exercise the rights
otherwise given to him, which would constitute a violation of the just, fair, and reasonable
 26

provision under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

If the Hon'ble Court decides that the time restriction should be reduced further, the State shall
be made responsible for ensuring that the offender has one last chance to see his family and is
informed about and supported in availing remaining remedies. However, the limitation will
negate the entire objective of providing a time gap between the rejection of a mercy petition
and execution.

Finally, the petition requests that in circumstances involving many death row criminals, the
execution of a convict who has exhausted all legal remedies not be delayed just because one
of the co-convicts has commenced pardon processes. It is requested that the Supreme Court
order that an execution warrant be issued by a competent court within seven days of the
rejection of a mercy petition and that the death sentence be carried out within seven days of
that.

As of now, legal practice holds that if one of the convicts files a compassion petition, a
review petition, or a curative petition, the death penalty of any of his co-convicts will not be
carried out until a decision on such petition is reached. It is said that death row inmates
prolong execution by exhausting their legal options one after the other. Because the
legislation allows for a 14-day buffer between the date of petition denial and the execution of
the penalty, another co-convict has plenty of time to file a mercy plea, postponing execution.
This may be observed in the Delhi rape case, when the death penalty could not be carried out
even for convicts who had exhausted all legal remedies due to the pending petitions.

However, the desire for separate execution is fraught with complications. Harbans Singh v
UOI is a wonderful example of a situation in which three people were sentenced to death in a
murder case. The three convicts submitted mercy petitions at different points in their
sentences and pursued legal remedies separately. One of the three convicts' death sentence
was converted to life in prison, which was then used as a justification by another criminal to
get his sentence mitigated.

The third inmate, however, who did not file a review petition, had already been executed. The
Supreme Court, in a letter written by Justice YV Chandrachud, expressed sincere remorse
over the circumstance, calling it sad.
 27

Unless extraordinary circumstances exist, convicts of the same offence who engaged in it to
the same extent cannot be handled differently. A situation in which one individual faces death
for his crime while the other is commuted or pardoned is a failure of the justice system as a
whole. To avoid a similar situation, the execution of all co-convicts is halted if a decision on
any one's petition is pending.

Keeping in mind the core constitutional values of life, liberty, and equality, the Supreme
Court should deny the third revision requested in the petition. The Court shall ensure that if
an execution is carried out, it is done only after the convict has exhausted all judicial
procedures accessible to him.

Delays can be reduced by successfully imposing time restrictions on the submission of mercy
petitions, their disposition, and the legal remedies available in the event of denial. Strict
adherence to time constraints would aid in boosting the efficiency of the judicial process
without jeopardizing convicts' legal recourse. While it is true that justice delayed is justice
denied, justice hurried is no justice at all.

As a result, the Court shall strive to strike an optimal balance between the delay in execution
of the death penalty and the rights of death row offenders. It would be quite regrettable if
rights were surrendered only to reduce delay. Better management is required instead to
reduce delays while yet protecting fundamental rights.

Delaying the execution of a capital punishment must be a reasonable consideration to

consider in reducing the sentence from capital punishment to life imprisonment, especially in
light of the psychological trauma suffered by the accused throughout their stay. The Supreme
Court has repeatedly held that deferring capital punishment for an extended period of time,
leaving the sentenced detainee to suffer the "dehumanising impact" of "confronting the
desolation of shifting back and forth between expectation and gloom," renders the death
penalty too barbaric to even consider, thus qualifying the detainee for the lesser sentence of a
day-to-day existence term. According to the most recent information, deferring death row
convicts' preliminary hearings renders the death penalty ineffective and instead increases the
pain imposed on the criminal and his family.

According to a capital punishment report released in January 2018, there were supposed to be
 28

371 offenders looking for death records in India before the end of December 2017 11, with the
most numbered case dating from 1991, which is 27 years ago. In any event, just four of the
inmates facing the death penalty have been killed in the last thirteen years, one of whom was
an assailant of a little child and the other three for illegal intimidation. According to the Law
Commission of India's 2015 report on capital penalty, death row convicts continue to face
lengthy delays in preliminary hearings, bids, and finally, chief pardon.

According to a study conducted by the Centre on Capital Punishment, the average period
spent looking for preliminaries by the 373 offenders on execution row was 5 years. The
preliminary term faced by 127 detainees was over 5 years, while for 54 convicted it was over
10 years. The postponement was unprecedented, to the point where a condemned in one case
had waited 21 years for capital sentence before being executed. The Supreme Court upheld
its verdict to impose capital penalty to two of the four convicts charged in the Nirbhaya rape
and murder case on May 4, 2018. The last time the death penalty was used was in 2015, when
Yakub Memon was sentenced after being found guilty of being involved in the Mumbai
Terrorist attack in 1993, which murdered 257 people.

CAUSES FOR DELAY IN EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCE

Inmates on death row have recently argued that the delay in the execution of a death sentence
should be taken into consideration as a basis for commutation. This comes as a response to
the refusal of their mercy petitions by the executive branch. It took an unreasonable amount
of time between the defendants being given the death penalty, requesting for clemency before
the president, and the decision on the "petition," which the defendants claim feels like yet
another "degrading and inhuman punishment." According to the defendants, the length of
time between these events was unreasonable. Inmates in Indian jails are utilizing the
"substantive due process" provision of the Indian constitution in an effort to commute their
death sentences to sentences of life in prison rather than the death penalty.

The subject of delaying the execution of death sentences, providing a prisoner on death row
with a compassionate treatment, and relieving him of the anguish of waiting for his execution
has already been examined by the Supreme Court. In the case of Devender Pal Singh
Bhullar v. State of N.C.T. Delhi, the court ruled that the convict's request for the
commutation of his death sentence to life in prison was denied on the grounds that the delay
could not be a justification for doing so in cases involving terrorism. The court's reasoning
11
Bar & Bench, Delay in Execution of Death Sentence- Tanya Thakur & Amit Kumar, Nirbhaya Rape Case
 29

was as follows: the delay could not be a justification for doing so in cases where the
defendant was convicted of terrorism. In the case of Mahendra Nath Das v. Union of India,
the court said that there had been an undue delay of twelve years between the conclusion of
the case and the imposition of the death penalty, which might be used as justification for
commutation.

The judgment of the court to stay the execution of fifteen criminal prisoners whose requests
for clemency had been rejected by the executive prevented their execution. In reaction to this,
the Chief Justice of India called together a court to deliberate on whether or not the
jurisdiction's "post-mercy" refusal was justified. Shatrughan Sinha v. Union of India was a
case that went to trial in 2013, and the court's ruling on the case was published in the
judgment that was handed down in January of 2014. The only rationale that the court
recognizes for commuting death sentences is a delay in the process of carrying out the
execution.

The major Safeguard are as follow:

a. Confirmation from High Court is mandatory.

The Sessions Court or Trial Court, or an assign fast track court or special court where, in
view of the nature of the offence, the court might articulate capital punishment to the convict,
usually hears these rarest of rare situations. Before issuing an execution order12, the High
Court must affirm the sentence under Section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC). This does not apply to central legislation such as the Air Force Act 1950, Army Act
1950, Assam Rifles Act 2006, ITBF Act 1992, and others that are exempt from the CrPC.

b. Constitution gives accused to appeal to supreme court and challenge high court’s
decision.

According to Articles 132, 134, and 136 of the Indian Constitution, a criminal who is
sentenced to death has the option of appealing the High Court's verdict to the Supreme Court.
The convict can file a review petition under Article 137 after the Supreme Court's ruling. If
the supreme court dismisses the review petition, they might submit a curative petition to have
the decision reconsidered.

c. Mercy Petition can be filed to the president or State Governor.

12
Crime and justice – death penalty – Pavitra K.M
 30

When any of the courts has decided on capital penalty, the offender can file a pardon or
mercy plea with the President of India (Article 72) or the Governor of the state (Article 161)
citing reasons such as age, health, and the law. The petition is dismissed by the President or
Governor based on state government recommendations and Home Ministry approval. Both
the President and the Governor have the authority to grant pardons, relief, reprieves, or
reductions in penalty, as well as suspend, transmit, or drive the criminal. In any scenario, for
the execution to take place, the two must be the mercy petition. In addition, the convict may
file a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the President's decision on a mercy
petition. When this petition is approved, the death penalty is carried out.

d. Convicts can file up to 4 petitions.

This opportunity has been granted to the convicts so that the judgement is not made hastily
and that the evidence is thoroughly examined so that an innocent person is not convicted.
During the trial, the provision provides sufficient checks and balances.

PART 4

CONSTITUTIONAL VALADITY OF DEATH PENALTY

The death penalty, often known as capital punishment, raises certain troubling problems, such
as whether capital punishment effectively eliminates criminals and crime from society. Is it
even an imaginable thing in this society? It is unimaginable for someone who cares deeply
about human nature. It can only be done if criminals rehabilitate themselves and adjust their
attitudes toward a brighter future. There has been a global tendency toward the abolition of
the death penalty; however, India has not taken this stance.

This type of punishment differs from the others due to the clear feature of irreversibility. A
 31

guy who has been executed for a crime cannot be brought back to life. As a result, if an error
occurs when making a decision, it cannot be corrected later. As previously stated, the death
penalty has been in use since antiquity, with records indicating that it was first used around
1750 B.C been enumerated, and its existence is remarkable in all ancient books such as
Hammurabi's Code, the Bible, and so on. Even great thinkers like Plato, John Locke, and
Thomas Hobbes, who advocated for the social contract theory, supported and preferred this
sort of punishment for serious crimes. Where this was the case, then the concept of
punishment changed in the society, leading to the abolition of the death penalty or capital
punishment, which became a debatable issue by one of the great criminologists named
Cessare Beccaria, who convinced many people that the death penalty should be abolished
because it is inhumane, useless, and technically speaking, a public assassination. Michigan
was the first state to abolish the death penalty in 1846, followed by Portugal and Venezuela
in 1867.

The United Nations also supported the abolition of the death penalty during the 1948
formulation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

13
The constitutional legality of capital punishment was first questioned in the United States
of America, which pioneered the repeal of the death penalty. Pennsylvania was the first state
to repeal the death penalty. Various legal scholars in the United States have expressed
differing opinions on the validity of capital punishment. Regardless, even after such
decisions, several countries have not totally abolished capital punishment. For example,
capital punishment is legal in Saudi Arabia, India, and other countries.

In India, capital punishment is carried out using the neck-hanging procedure. This technique
has been in effect since the time of the British Empire and has remained unchanged to this
day. A capital sentence is included in Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, and High
Courts have the authority to confirm capital punishments under Section 368 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Capital punishment is only applied in the most exceptional of
circumstances. The Supreme Court has stated that circumstances in which a homicide is
reported in its most heinous form might be classified as the rarest of rare cases.

In the case of Mitu v. State of Punjab (2001), the Supreme Court decided that mandatory
capital sentence is unconstitutional. While. Despite the fact that the ensuing legislation for

13
INDIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
 32

pharmaceutical and criminal offences proposes a mandatory death penalty, the Supreme
Court has not explicitly declared capital punishment to be unconstitutional. Furthermore,
Indian courts have failed to impose the mandatory execution punishment for these crimes. In
Bachan Sinngh v Province of Punjab (1980), the Indian high court stated that capital
penalty should be established when it is used as an exceptional punishment in the most
unusual of instances.

14
The procedure for terminating a person's consecrated life must be simple, rational, and
reasonable. The following is how we can express our sacred standard:
A. Capital punishment should be used only in the most exceptional of circumstances.
B. Capital punishment should be reserved for exceptional circumstances and should be
considered as such.
C. The accused will have the right to be heard.
D. The sentence should be tailored to the circumstances of the individual.
E. The death penalty will be upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can be
approached under Article 136 of the Constitution and Section 379 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
F. Those who have been criticized may apply to God for absolution, recompense, and
other relief under Sections 433 and 434 of the Cr.P.C., as well as to the President or
Governors under Articles 72 and 161. Articles 72 and 161 contain, in addition to the
legal force, the option for the President and lead representative to meddle with the
benefits of the issue; however, there is a limited expert for legal specialists to survey
it, and it must ensure that the President or lead representative has access to all relevant
archives and materials.
G. However, the substance of the lead representative's capacity should be based on a
standard of law and judicious issues, not on ethnicity, religion, rank, or political
affiliations.
H. The accused has the right to a brief and reasonable preliminary hearing under Articles
21 and 22 of the Constitution.
I. The accused is ineligible to be tortured under Articles 21 and 22.
J. The blamed has the right to discourse and articulation under guardianship under
Articles 21 and 19 of the Constitution.
K. Adequately qualified and delegated attorneys are qualified to present the denounced.

14
INDIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
 33

PART 5

Judicial Precedents:

(1) YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1728 of 2007

OVERVIEW
Yakub, a chartered accountant, was the younger brother of Tiger Memon, the main
conspirator of the blast that slaughtered 257 individuals and left 713 harmed. 15Memon
was indicted on charges for criminal intrigue, supporting and abetting and encouraging in
a psychological militant act, illicit belonging and transportation of arms and ammo, and
having explosives with purpose to jeopardize lives.

Upon his conviction at a Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA)
court in July 2007, Memon was granted capital punishment, which was affirmed by the
Supreme Court in March 2013. Following the Supreme Court maintained his discipline,
Memon recorded a leniency request before President Pranab Mukherjee, who dismissed

15
Lawtopus, capital punishment
 34

his pardon supplication in April 2014. Memon has been in a correctional facility since
1994, when he was captured at the New Delhi railroad station.

In 1980, the Supreme Court decided that capital punishment ought to be given uniquely in
the "most uncommon of the uncommon cases", in which, "the aggregate inner voice of
the network is stunned to such an extent that it will anticipate the holders of the legal
capacity to cause capital punishment".
On 21 July, the Supreme Court of India dismissed 1993 Mumbai impacts convict Yakub
Memon's remedial request against his capital punishment.

He was planned to be held tight 30 July, however following the SC's dismissal, Memon
submitted another request in the court, looking for a stay on the equivalent.

CHARGES
a. Criminal conspiracy- terrorist act and disruptive activities & murder
b. Aiding and abetting and helping in a terrorist act
c. Illegal possession & transportation of weapons
d. Possessing explosives with intent to endanger lives.
16
Yakub allegedly handled his brother Tiger Memon’s funds and was convicted on charges of
having funded the training of 15 youths who were sent to Pakistan to learn the handling of
arms and ammunition. He was also accused of funding the escape of the Memon family
following the blasts in the financial capital of India.

The attacks were allegedly carried out by one of India's most wanted men, Dawood Ibrahim,
and his accomplice Tiger Memon to avenge Muslim deaths during the Hindu-Muslim riots
that had rocked Mumbai a few months earlier.

Tiger was awarded the death penalty by a Tada (Terrorism and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act) court on 27 July, 2007. He, however, is still in Pakistan and India is still
clueless about the whereabouts of Dawood Ibrahim.

FACTS

16
First Post- Hanging of Yakub Memon
 35

17
1. Yakub Abdul Memon convicted over his involvement in the 1993 Bombay bombings
by special terrorist and disruptive activities court on 27 July 2007.
2. Yakub memon was the brother of one of the prime suspects in the bombings, Tiger
Memon.
3. The court held that 18Memon’s role was limited not only tp the extent of correspondence
between the masterminds and all other accused, but he was also entrusted with task of
handling explosive bags and for keeping them safe.
4. It also held that Memon was actively involved in Hawala transactions for the purpose of
facilitating the blasts.
5. Justice P.D. Kode, in a terrorist and disruptive activities (prevention)act (TADA)court,
found Memon guilty and awarded him with death penalty.
6. Memon filed an appeal before the supreme court of India under section19 of the TADA
act and state of Maharashtra filed a reference before the court for the confirmations of
Memon’s death sentence.
7. On 21 march 2013, the Supreme Court confirmed Memon’s conviction and death
sentence for conspiracy through financing the attacks.
8. Memon then filed a review petition seeking review of Supreme Court’s judgment
confirming his death sentence.
9. On 30 July 2013, supreme court rejected Memon’s application for oral hearing and
dismissed his review petition by circulation.
10. On 6 august 2013, Memon’s brother Suleman filed a mercy petition before the president
of India.
11. President of India rejected the mercy petition preferred by the petitioner.
12. On 30 July 2015 Yakub Abdul Memon was executed by his death sentence.

JUDGMENT

19
Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution the
petitioner, who has been sentenced to death, has prayed for issuance of a mandamus or
appropriate writ or direction for setting aside the order dated 30-4-2015, passed by the
Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities

17
Case mine- Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra
18
Wikipedia.org
19
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.135 OF 2015
 36

(Prevention) Act, 1987, for Bombay Blast Cases and the order bearing No. S-
0113.C.R.652/13/PRS-3 dated 13-7-2015, passed by the Government of Maharashtra, Home
Department and the communication bearing OW No. asj/death sentence/222/2015 dated 13-
7-2015, issued by the Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur, in terms whereof the
death sentence awarded to the petitioner has been directed to be executed on 30-7-2015, at
7.00 a.m.; issuance of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents and each one of them
along with their subordinates/agents/assigns from taking steps in pursuance of the orders
dated 30-4-2015 and 13-7-2015, and, further to stay the execution of the death sentence
awarded to him in terms of the judgment dated 25-10-2007 of the Designated TADA Court,
Bombay in BBC No. 1 of 1993, which has been confirmed by this Court vide judgment dated
21-3-2013 in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, till the petitioner has
exhausted all the legal remedies available to him, to have the sentence of death awarded
commuted to that of life imprisonment including the remedies available under Articles 72
and 161 of the Constitution of India.

(2) BACHAN SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the imposition of the death sentence under
section 302 of the IPC, 1860 and the sentencing procedure embodied in sub-section (3) of
section 354 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.

20
The Court held that, “in fixing the degree of punishment or making the choice of sentence
for various offences… the court should not confine its consideration ‘principally’ or merely
to the circumstances connected with the particular crime, but also give due consideration to
the circumstances of the criminal.” The Court concluded that, “A real and abiding concern
for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s
instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative
option is unquestionably foreclosed.”

RARE OF THE RAREST CASES- PRINCIPLES

 The principles of what would constitute the “rarest of rare” were laid down by the top
court in the landmark judgment in ‘Bachan Singh’.
 Two prime questions, the top court held, may be asked and answered.
20
AIR 1980, 2 SCC 684
 37

 First, is there something uncommon about the crime which renders the sentence of
imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence.
 Second, are there circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to
impose the death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating
circumstances which speak in favour of the offenders?
 Courts have agreed that the Delhi gangrape case meets the test of rarest of rare.

(3) JAGMOHAN SINGH vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

21
The five judge bench of Supreme Court, by a consistent decision, maintained the protected
legitimacy of capital punishment and held that death penalty was not violative of article 14,
19 and 21. For this situation the legitimacy of capital punishment was tested on the ground
that it was violative of Article 19 and 21 on the grounds that since it didn't give any strategy.
It was mollified that the system recommended under Cr.P.C was restricted distinctly to
discoveries of blame and granting capital punishment. The Supreme Court held that the
decision of capital punishment is done as per the strategy set up by law. It was seen that the
appointed authority settles on the decision between capital sentence or detainment of life
based on conditions and realities and nature of wrongdoing welcomed on record during trial.

(4) RAJENDER PRASAD vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

22
Justice Krishna Iyer empathetically stressed that death penalty is violative of Article 14,19
& 21. He further said that to impose death penalty, 2 things must be required:-
a) The special reason should be recorded for imposing the death penalty in a case.
b) The death penalty must be imposed in extraordinary circumstances.

(5) MACCHI SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB

23
The Supreme Court laid down certain considerations for determining whether a case falls
under the category of rarest of rare cases or not.

Rarest of Rare Cases terms:

1. When the murder is committed in a brutal, ridiculous, diabolical, revolting, or
reprehensible manner so as to awaken intense and extreme level of the community.

21
AIR1973 (SC 947)
22
AIR 1979, (SC 916)
23
AIR 1983, SCR (3) 413
 38

2.When total depravity and cruelty are the motives behind a murder.

(6) SHATRUGAN CHAUHAN & ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA

OVERVIEW
This Writ Petition was recorded under Art 32 of the Constitution of India by the relatives of
two demise convicts Suresh and Ramji. They were indicted for capital punishment under Sec
302 of IPC.24 Their capital punishment were affirmed by the Allahabad High Court and the
Supreme Court. At that point they recorded Mercy Petitions routed to the Governor and
President of India.
Both these Mercy Petitions were dismissed by the Governor and the President. The
candidates were not educated regarding this dismissal by the specialists and there turned out
to be over the top deferral of 12 long a long time in considering and choosing the Mercy
Petitions.
At that point this Writ Petition was recorded by the family members of the convicts with a
application to pronounce the execution of capital punishment after the rejection of Mercy
Petition as unlawful and to drive capital punishment.
The Court considered current realities and saw that unjustifiable and exorbitant postponement
of 12 long a long time in execution of capital punishment does absolutely credit to torment
which surely is infringement of Art 21 and consequently involves as the ground for
replacement of sentence. The Court at that point drove capital punishment of Suresh and
Ramji into detainment of life and furthermore offered headings to be continued in execution
of capital punishment.

FACTS

Mr. Shatrughan Chauhan and Mr. Mahinder Chauhan, family members of death convicts –
Suresh and Ramji have filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 55 of 2013.25

On 19.12.1997, the petitioners were convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of five
family members of the first petitioner’s brother for which they were awarded death sentence.
On 23.02.2000, the Allahabad High Court sured their conviction and death sentence and,
24
Law Times Journal- case analysis of Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India
25
Drishti IAS case study
 39

subsequently Supreme Court dismissed their Criminal Appeal being No. 821 of 2000, vide
judgment dated 02.03.2001. On 09.03.2001 and 29.04.2001, the first and the second
petitioners filed mercy petitions respectively addressed to the Governor/President of India.

On 09.03.2001 and 29.04.2001, the first and the second petitioners herein filed mercy
petitions

respectively addressed to the Governor/President of India. On 18.04.2001, Supreme Court

dismissed the Review Petition (Crl.) being No. 416 of 2001 which was filed on 30.03.2001
On 18.12.2001, the Governor rejected the mercy petition after taking nine months’ time. On
22.01.2002 State of U.P informed Govt. of India that the Governor has rejected the
petitioners’ mercy petition. Neither the petitioner nor their relatives were informed about the
rejection.

On 04.05.2001, State of Uttar Pradesh wrote to the Government Advocate, District Varanasi
asking for a copy of the trial court judgment, On 04.09.2001, the District Magistrate,
Varanasi informed that it is not possible to get a copy of the trial court judgment as all the
papers are lying in the Supreme Court. Moreover there were inordinate delay in sending the
judgments of the trial court to the Govt. of India, and 12 months delay in sending information
about the status of petitioners’ mercy petition to State of U.P. There was delay of nearly three
years in furnishing information about the pending mercy petitions when the same was sought
by Prison authorities of the U.P jail.

On 08.02.2013, the President rejected the mercy petitions. The petitioners had not received
any written communication about this till the date and came to know about it only through
news reports.

Therefore, there is a total delay of 12 years and 2 months since filing of mercy petitioners till
informing the petitioners about the rejection by the President.

Hence this writ petition was filed with a prayer to issue a writ of declaration declaring that
execution of sentence of death pursuant to the rejection of the mercy petitions by the
 40

President is unconstitutional and to set aside the death sentence imposed upon them by
commuting the same to imprisonment for life.

ISSUE

1. Whether the delay in execution would amount to violation of right to life under Art
21.
2. If the delay in execution alone would be sufficient ground for commutation of death
sentence.

JUDGEMENT

The Court observed that Mercy statute is a part of developing norm of tolerability, which is
the sign of the general public and that reprisal has no established an incentive in our biggest
vote based nation. Indeed, even a blamed has a true security under the Constitution and it is
the Court's obligation to shield and ensure the equivalent. 26The Court was of relevant view
that unjustifiable, excessive and nonsensical postponement in execution of capital
punishment does unquestionably credit to torment which in reality is infringement of Art 21
and accordingly involves as the ground for recompense of sentence.

At last, The Court held that, without legitimate, conceivable and adequate explanations
behind the deferral, the postponement of twelve years in knowledge the benevolence request
is an applicable ground for the substitution of capital punishment into life detainment.

The Court likewise gave rules for compelling administering of the methodology of
documenting mercy petitions and for the reason for the passing convicts. They are as per the
following:

1. Lone or single life repression preceding the dismissal of the benevolence appeal by the
President is illegal and ought not be embraced.
2. Even after dismissal of the kindness request by the President, the convict can move toward
a writ court for recompense of capital punishment or challenge the dismissal of the
benevolence appeal and lawful guide ought to be given to the convict at all stages.
3. At the point when a benevolence request is gotten or imparted by the State Government

26
WRIT PETITION (Crl.) No. 55of 2013, Indian Kanoon
 41

after the dismissal by the Governor, essential materials, for example, police records,
judgment of the preliminary court, the HC and the SC and all other associated reports ought
to be called without a single delay fixing a period limit for the experts for sending it to the
Ministry of Home Affairs.
4. The dismissal of Mercy Petition by the Governor or the President ought to forthwith be
conveyed to the convict and his family recorded as a hard copy.
5. Passing convicts are qualified as a privilege for get a duplicate of the dismissal of the
leniency appeal by the President and the Governor.
6. It is fundamental that a base time of 14 days be specified between the correspondence of
the dismissal of the Mercy Petition and the planned date of execution.
7. There ought to be customary psychological wellness assessment of all sentenced convicts
and proper clinical consideration ought to be given to those out of luck.
8. Copy of applicable records ought to be outfitted to the kept inside seven days by the jail
specialists to help with making kindness appeal and requesting of the courts.
9. Jail specialists ought to encourage and permit a last gathering between the detainee and his
loved ones preceding his execution.
10. Obligatory Postmortem to be directed on death convicts after the execution.

CASE COMMENT
27
In spite of the fact that the replacement of capital punishment of the solicitors is an adept
choice since they have experienced a deferral of 12 long years, this judgment can set out
terrible point of reference for future cases. The recompense of sentence just dependent on
defer will make a convoluted lawful circumstance.

The facts demonstrate that the force under Art 72/161 is the optional intensity of the
President and Governor, and the equivalent can't be managed by any legal force or authority.
Be that as it may, to leave a similar uncontrolled may offer ascent to issues.

Hence by leaving the force verifiable we can make it sketchy on how these forces are worked
out. The Judiciary can positively demand the Ministry to keep its own guidelines which can
decrease to a huge broaden the deferral caused.

This will assist us with guaranteeing that the demise convicts profit every one of their

27
A CASE AGAINST DELAY AS A GROUND FOR COMMUTATION OF DEATH SENTENCES- Zubin Dash & Shashank
Singh
 42

privileges till the last moment of execution.

(7) NIRBHAYA CASE

Justice Verma Committee Report

The committee was made after the Nirbhaya case to accommodate snappier preliminary and
improve discipline and criminal arrangements in the law for individuals who are blamed for
perpetrating sexual offenses against ladies. 28 A portion of the reformist changes which the
council proposed are:
 According to the board of trustees, assault and rape don't appear to be basically
wrongdoings of energy anyway it is a statement of intensity. Assault ought to be
treated as a different offense and it ought not be restricted distinctly to the entrance of
the vagina, mouth or rear-end and its extension ought to be broadened. Some other
non-sexual entrance whose nature is sexual ought to be remembered for the definition
of assault given under different laws.
 It suggested that marriage ought not to be considered as a permit to perform sexual
offenses.
 It guided that non-penetrative types of sexual contact ought to be viewed as rape. The
offense of rape to be plotted to incorporate all types of non-consensual or non-
penetrative contacting of sexual nature.
 The utilization of words or any demonstration or any type of motion that makes a
danger of sexual action ought to be named as rape and be culpable for the equivalent.
 There are some key suggestions made by the Committee on the 29 Sexual Harassment
of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Bill, 2012 which
were:
 Domestic laborers must be incorporated inside the domain of the Bill.
 The complainant and the respondent should initially endeavor to mollification that
makes it simple for the two of them to settle the issue.
 The manager should pay remuneration to the one who has experienced inappropriate
behavior at the working environment in any structure.
 The business should establish an inside grievances council to which protests ought to
be recorded and heard.

28
Law Times Journal – Soma Singh – Facts on Nirbhaya Case
29
Sexual harassment of women at workplace bill, 2012
 43

 It believed that Acid assault ought not be clubbed with the arrangements of horrifying
hurt and suggested that the focal and state government should find a way to
remunerate casualties of rape.

 It suggested that the prerequisite of approval for arraignment of military work force
ought to be explicitly avoided when a sexual offense is affirmed.

 Appointed commissioner ought to be selected in the selected zones to screen and

arraign for sexual offenses against ladies.
 IPC on servitude ought to be revised to condemn dealing.
 The terms 'damage' and 'wellbeing' ought to be characterized under the 30 Juvenile
Justice Act, 2000 to incorporate mental and physical mischief and soundness of
adolescents.
 It was of the view that capital punishment ought not be granted for the offense of
assault. It suggested life detainment for assault.
 The Committee has suggested the cessation of the two-finger test as it doesn't bode
well on the grounds that the offense of assault can be submitted against her regardless
of whether she is routine to sex.
 The Committee has suggested certain means for the transformation of the police. This
remembers the foundation of Security Commissions for states to guarantee that the
administration doesn't practice any sort of impact on the police.

31
Some proposals for changes in the administration of cases:

a) A Rape Crisis Cell ought to be set okay with giving prompt notice of the matter when
a FIR according to sexual offenses is made. The Cell ought to likewise give legitimate
help to the people in question.
b) All police headquarters ought to have CCTVs at the passage and in the scrutinizing
room with the goal that their exercises can be observed.
c) Arrangement of online F.I.R. recording ought to be there.
d) It should be the obligation of the authorities to help survivors of sexual offenses
independent of the wrongdoing's locale and whatever else.
e) The police must be prepared on the best way to manage sexual offenses properly and
successfully.
30
Juvenile justice act
31
Legal Service India
 44

f) The number of police staff ought to be expanded for better help of the people in
question.

In present day society the instances of assault have prospered as of late despite the fact that
sex uniformity is revered in Indian Constitution. The proficiency rate in metropolitan regions
can assume a critical part in assault cases as education status of people will influence the
quantity of assault cases. We live in a nation of incredible personalities like Mahatma Gandhi
consequently we want this evil to kill from the advanced society. Nearly non-existent usage
of government plans for improvement of ladies' circumstance is one of the principle purposes
behind the critical circumstance of ladies in India. In spite of the fact that a similar insensitive
demeanor is noticeable in a ton of spots, it influences the issue of ladies more. This is on the
grounds that the insensitive disposition isn't simply regulatory or political, it is established in
the public arena and profound quality.

After the Nirbhaya assault case, where a lady was fiercely assaulted exclusively on the
grounds that she was out late around evening time, and was making the most of her
opportunity and her existence with her male companion, our legislature has albeit found a
way to improve the condition, it has not helped the ladies much.

PART 6

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS:

In India the present position regarding death sentence is a little hustled as people have
varied opinion on death penalty for the accused. As every coin has 2 sides, similarly death
penalty also comes with pros and cons with it.
The public's desires to keep the death penalty have repeatedly been reflected in the
legislator’s efforts to transmit public sentiment into the parliament's chambers. The
intelligentsia as evidenced by numerous law commission studies and numerous judgments
handed down by the highest legal authorities, has occasionally felt the need to uphold the
penalty, though. This emotion does not, represent a "mob mentality" that is ganging up on a
criminal.

Despite the fact that other civilized countries base their legal systems on the ideals of
equality, fairness, and adherence to the law, this kind of belief is not unique to India.
Additionally, an academic discussion that is solely dependent on providing figures and
 45

performing an empirical survey is insufficient to paint a whole picture of the invisible

effects the death penalty concept has on the criminal and his family's social lives. Therefore,
the court must proceed cautiously when issuing such a sentence, commuting it, or declaring
it unconstitutional.

The act of sentencing someone to death is something the author hopes India will criminalize
one day, and that day may not be too far off. However, it must be remembered that until that
time, the doubts of the majority of "abolitionists" have been seen in the rulings that have
filtered the situations in which someone may be given the death penalty. In fact, it is
reasonable to predict that, given the current situation, fewer cases will result in the death
penalty being handed down if it is used correctly in accordance with judicial rules.

The Riley case by the Privy Council, the effect of such an excessive delay in prolonging the
degrading and inhumane effects of a death sentence was cited in order to analyze the issue
at hand rather than the legality or morality of such punishment. But the fact that a
punishment of this kind has already been given in a post-mercy case and reinstated based on
ideas of the rule of law by the various social institutions still stands.

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the ability of courts to commute death sentences
has not been established in any legal principles. The court commutes the sentence if it
determines that doing so will best serve its "supervening power" to uphold the rule of law
and the ideals of justice. But the court, which is responsible for carrying out justice and
enforcing the law, must not view justice as a "one-sided idea." It is important to realize that
focusing solely on how a delay affects the prisoner does not advance justice. It is necessary
to embrace a more comprehensive viewpoint that includes the general public, the victim's
family, and their friends who have also lost loved ones.

There is no amount of recompense that can make up for the loss they have endured.
Therefore, the Supreme Court, which is a constitutional court in essence, must exercise
caution when considering the law of the land because the relevant legislation transcends the
lives of actual people and has far-reaching implications for the convicts as well as the
victims and their families as well as the heart and mind of society. According to the Judicial
Committee of Privy Council's guidelines in the Pratt case, the courts' approach must be
compassionate. That in no way implies that the court should shirk its responsibility to
harden its hearts and impose the just, exemplary punishment when called for by the
 46

circumstances.

Delay instances, where both the judiciary and the legislature, in their wisdom, have
determined it inappropriate to commute a death sentence in the sake of justice for the rarest
of rare cases, are the epitome of a specific category of cases. Therefore, it is advisable to
proceed cautiously while considering whether to commute death sentences for reasons of
delay. Judges should not commute death row defendants' sentences as long as they rule in
accordance with the Triveniben Dicta. If the death sentence is commuted to life in prison, as
Justice Mukherjee stated when reaffirming the death penalty, we will be surrendering to
spasmodic feeling, unbridled compassion, and misdirected sympathy, the aforementioned
arguments lead to the conclusion that the ground of delay alone is insufficient to commute
the death sentence.

The problem of delay can be minimized by effectively defining the deadlines for submitting
a mercy petition, handling such requests, and providing legal recourse in the event that such
a plea is rejected. By rigorously sticking to the deadlines, without compromising the already
accessible legal remedies, the efficiency of the legal process can be increased. According to
the proverb, justice hurried is not justice at all, but justice delayed is justice denied.
Therefore, the court should seek to balance the human rights of death row inmates with the
delay in carrying out the death sentence. If inmate’s rights were violated solely to postpone
matters, it would be very bad.
According to Indian judicial system and laws death penalty is valid if the accused is found
guilty and the act done is horrific and barbaric in nature. So, in my opinion death penalty as
a capital punishment shall not be abolished. Otherwise, justice won’t be served and the
accused or the criminals would be encouraged with delay or no strict punishment from the
judicial system.
The principle laid down in cases like Bachan Singh or Machhi Singh have to be strictly
complied with, so that the person convicted for offence of similar nature are awarded
punishment of highest degree.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

https://www.mondaq.com/india/crime/882448/india-and-its-regressive-step-in-crime-and-
punishment
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/international
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/delay-in-execution-of-death-penalty-need-for-a-
balance
 47

https://www.ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Death-Penalty-in-India-An-Overall-View.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_India#:~:text=Executions%20are
%20carried%20out%20by,the%20'rarest%20of%20cases'.
https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-supreme-court-of-india-and-delay-in-the-execution-of-the-death-
penalty-as-a-ground-for-commutation-to-life-imprisonment/