 Section 52: Good Faith

 Section 52 A:Harbour
PUNISHMENTS

 SECTION 53:
 Imprisonment
 Simple and Rigorous
 Fine
 Forfeiture of the property
 Life Imprisonment
 Capital punishment
 Deterrent Theory
 Retributive Theory
 Preventive Theory
 Reformative Theory
 Expiation Theory
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

 Capital punishment, also called death penalty, execution of an offender

sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law for a criminal
offense.
 Punishment which is to be awarded for the most heinous, grievous and
detestable crimes against humanity.
 Section 53 of IPC deals with Capital punishment.
 IPC and other legislations prescribed death penalty as a punishment
 IPC Sections:
 Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting the waging of war against the
Govt. of India (S. 120)
 (ii) Abetment of mutiny actually committed. (S. 132)
 (iii) Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person
suffers death (S. 194)
 (iv) Murder (S. 302)
(vi) Abetment of suicide of a child, an insane or intoxicated person (S.305)
 (vii) Attempt to murder by a person under sentence of imprisonment for life if
hurt is caused (S. 307)
 (viii) Dacoity with murder (S. 396)
 Criminal Law Amendment Act 2018( Section 376)
 Section 303 (Mithu v State of Punjab)
 Other Legislations:
 Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 (Section 4(1)
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Prevention) Act 1985,
 Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) (Section3(2)(a)
 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989
(Section 3(2)(i))
 Arms Act, 1959, as amended in 1988 (Section 27)
 Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, as amended in 2004 (Section16(1)
 POCSO Act(The protection of children from sexual offences amendment act
2019)
Constitutionality of Capital punishent

 Section 354 (3) ofCrpc,1973

 Jag Mohan Singh v. State of U.P(AIR 1973 SC 997)
Held: Death penalty for murder was constitutionally
invalid, as it violates, fundamental rights of the citizens
 Ediga Anamma V. State of A.P ( AIR 1974 S.C 799)
S.C has given some guidelines to the courts to exercise
their judicial discretion while deciding between life
imprisonment and death sentence.
 Justice Krishna Iyer commuted the death sentence of the accused to life
imprisonment considering factors like gender, age and socio-economic
background of the accused.
 Section 354 (3) was added to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
which stated that in cases where capital punishment was being
awarded, the Court has to give special reasons for it. This made life
imprisonment a rule, and death penalty an exception.
 Rajendra prasad V State of U.P(AIR 1979 SC 916) held that the
“special reason” necessary for imposing death must not to the crime as
such, but to the criminal is not warranted by law.
 Supreme Court has observed that capital sentence may be awarded where
survival of the society is in danger. Death sentence may be awarded in the
case of planned motivation, white collar criminals, persons guilty of
adulteration etc.
Rarest of Rarest Doctrine

 Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (AIR 1980 S.C 898 931) in this
case, the doctrine of “rarest of the rare” was formulated.
 The bench (majority decision) opined that capital punishment did not
violate either Article 19 or Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also laid
down that mitigating, and aggravating factors should be considered
while deciding the matter.
 Propositions:
 i. The extreme step of imposing death penalty need not be imposed except in cases of extreme
culpability.

 ii. Before opting out for capital punishment, the circumstances of the offender must need to
accounted for. (Aggravating and Mitigating circumstances)

 iii. Life imprisonment is rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words, death sentence
should only be imposed in cases where life imprisonment proves to be altogether insufficient
punishment giving regard to accurate conditions of the crime.

 iv. A balance sheet of all aggravating and mitigating circumstances needs to be drawn up and full
weightage must be given to mitigating circumstances just so that a balance between both can be
struck.
Aggravating and mitigating factors

 Aggravating Circumstances:
 1.If the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or
 2.If the murder involves exceptional depravity; or
 3.If the murder is of a member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of a member of any
police force or of any public servant and was committed while such member or public servant
was on duty; or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such member of
public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty as such member or public servant whether at
the time of murder he was such member or public servant, as the case may be, or had ceased
to be such member or public servant; or

 4. If the murder is of a person who had acted in the lawful discharge of his duty under Section
43 of the CrPC,1973 or who had rendered assistance to a Magistrate or a police officer
demanding his aid or requiring his assistance under Section 37 and Section 129 of the
CrPC,1973.
Mitigating Circumstances:

 1.That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional
disturbance.'
 2.The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be awarded death penalty.
 3.The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would
constitute a continuing threat to society.
 4.The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by
evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions 3 and 4 above.
 5.That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally
justified in committing the offence.
 6.That the accused acted under duress or domination of another person.
 7.That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said
defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
 In Macchi Singh vs. State of Punjab(1983) 3 SCC 470)
 Firstly: Manner of Commission of murder - When the murder is
committed in an extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense
and extreme indignation in the community, for instance, when the
house of the victim is set a flame to roast him alive, when the body is
cut to pieces or the victim is subjected to inhuman torture.
 Secondly: Motive - When the murder is committed for a motive
which evidences depravity and meanness eg. a hired assassin, a
cold blooded murder to inherit property, or gain control over
property of a ward, or a murder committed for betrayal of the
motherland.
 Thirdly: Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime - where a
scheduled caste or minority community person is murdered in
circumstances which arouse: social wrath; or bride burning for dowry,
or for remarriage.
 Fourthly: Magnitude of the Crime - Crimes of enormous
proportion, like multiple murders of a family or persons of a
particular caste, community or locality.
 Fifthly: Personality of victim of murder - When the victim is an
innocent child, a helpless woman, a public figure generally held
and respected - whose murder is committed for political or similar
reasons other than personal reasons.
cases

 in Panchi vs. State of U.P. (1998 CriLJ 3305)

In this case ,accused persons armed with sharp edged weapons, entering
house of deceased persons & butchering four persons to death including a
five years old child and an old lady
mercilessly, the Supreme Court held that the appellants deserve nothing
less than death sentence.
 Kehar Singh and Others v. State (AIR 1988 S.C 1883) (Indira
Gandhi Assassination case)
 The Supreme Court held that the same came under the category of
rarest of rare. It wasn't simply a murder. It was the crime of
assassination of a duly elected Prime Minister of India. There wasn't any
personal motivation. The aggrieve elements was as to an action taken
by the government in the exercise of its constitutional powers and
duties.
 The security guards who were duty bound to protect the Prime Minister
themselves assumed the role of assassins. It was a betrayal of its worst
kind. It was a murder most foul and senseless. Those who executed the
plot and those who conspired with them therefore, all fell in the
category of rarest of rare.
 Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao &another v. State of Andra pradesh ( AIR 1996
SC 2791)
 Two appellants were accused of setting up a super express bus on fire by
sprinkling petrol with the motive of plundering the passengers. This resulted into
roasting 23 passengers to death.
 Court held that ,this case was one of the rarest of rarest case not merely because of
record number of innocent human beings roasted alive but the inhuman manner in
which the scheme of crime was executed.
 Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra( 2012) 9 SCC 1.
 S. 302 r/w Ss. 120-B, 109 & 34 and Ss. 307, 397, 324, 341, 342 & 364 -
Mumbai Terrorist Attack case - Sole terrorist offences, therefore, upheld:
for multiple murder, murder with common intention and abetment,
attempt to murder with commen intention several other allied offences
under IPC, committing terrorist acts punishable under S. 16 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as well as offences under Explosives
Act, 1884, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Arms Act,
 1959.
 Deepak Rai Vs State of Bihar(2013) 10 SCC 421)
 The Appellant along with two others conspired and burnt his wife and five children
to death while they were sleeping at night. The appellants were sentenced to death
on the basis of the following aggravating circumstances of the case:
 1.The crime shocked the conscience of the society as well as judicial conscience
 2.Culpability involved extreme depravity , and murder committed was gruesome,
merciless and brutal.
 3.The appellants acted as hardened criminals as witnesses feared to depose against
them at the trial
 4.They acted as blood thirsty scheming and hardened criminals who killed minor
children and wife without any provocation.
 5.They were menace to society with no possibility of reformation.
 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State Of Maharashtra (2015 (3)
ALT )
 The Court held that Memon’s role was limited not only to the
extent of correspondence between the masterminds and all other
accused, but he was also entrusted with the task of handling the
explosives bags and for their safe keeping
 It also held that Memon was actively involved in hawala transactions for
the purpose of facilitating the blasts.
 Channulal Varma v. State of Chattisgarh 2018(15)SCALE306
 In accordance with the facts of the case, appellant had entered the
house of Anandram Sahu, Firanteen Bai, and Ratna Sahu and caused
fatal injuries with a knife. Later, appellant entered the house of Durga
Banchhor with a blood-stained knife while assaulting Meera Banchhor
and inflicted grievous injuries.
 Sessions Court had convicted him for murder under Section 302 IPC,
Section 307 IPC i.e. attempt to murder, Section 506(2) IPC for
threatening to kill and house trespass under Section 450 IPC.
 Rarest of rare case
 The Court held that the imposition of the death sentence was not the
only option and hence the same needs to be modified to life
imprisonment. “Till the time death penalty exists in the statute books,
the burden to be satisfied by the judge in awarding this punishment
must be high.” Appeals were partly allowed, commuting death
sentence to life imprisonment.
 Arguments for Death Penalty:
 1. Elimination of murders by execution is far retribution and serves justice.
 2.Punishment must match the gravity of offences
 3.Death penalty shows society’s reaction to heinous crimes
 4.One who ends somebody’s life, forfeits his right to life.
 5.Death sentence should be looked as a form of retributive justice
 6.It is the most effective way to protect society against condemned offenders.
 7.Economic point of view, less expensive to execute a convict than to house him/her in a prison
institution for life.
 8.It prevents over-crowding in prisons and helps elimination of offenders who are potential danger to
the institution
 9.It upholds rule of law
 10.Recidivist(habitual offender)
 Arguments against death sentence:
 1. Death is killing and all killings are wrong
 2.It is a lethal vengeance with brutalises the society.
 3.Death penalty is unjust and often discriminatory against poor who cannot
afford to defend themselves against this.
 4.Death Penalty is violative of human rights
 5.It denies the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the offender
 6.Death penalty is inhuman and barbaric
 7.Germes of crimes are within the society.
 8.It may reasonably be substituted in form of life imprisonment.
Quick Reference

 Cases
 1. Jag Mohan Singh v. State of U.P(AIR 1973 SC 997)
 2.Rajendra prasad V State of U.P(AIR 1979 SC 916)
 3. Ediga Anamma V. State of A.P ( AIR 1974 S.C 799)
 4. Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (AIR 1980 S.C 898 931) I
 5. Macchi Singh vs. State of Punjab(1983) 3 SCC 470)
 6.Kehar Singh and Others v. State (AIR 1988 S.C 1883)
 7.Dhanjaya Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal( 1994 SCC(2) 220.
 8.Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra( 2012) 9 SCC 1.
 9. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State Of Maharashtra (2015 (3) ALT )
 10. Channulal Varma v. State of Chattisgarh 2018(15)SCALE306
 11.Mukesh and Anrs. Vs NCT Delhi (Nirbhaya Case)(2017) 6 SCC
 12.Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu.

LIFE IMPRISONMENT

 Section 53 A :Construction of reference to Transportation

 1857 rebellion Indian prisoners were transported to Andaman.
 1955 amendment to IPC
 From 1956 transportation no longer remained a punishment even on the statute
books.
 Section 54: Commutation of sentence of death
 Appropriate government-President and Governor-Power of Pardon –Article 161
and 72 of Constitution.
 Remission implies reducing the period of sentence without changing its
character.
 Commutation denotes the substitution of a form of punishment for a lighter one.
 Section 55:Commutation of Sentence of Imprisonment of Life
 Section 55A: Appropriate Government
 Section 57: Fractions of terms of Punishment.
 Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 600
('Godse')
 Godse was sentenced to transportation for life. In fact he was made to
undergo a sentence of rigorous imprisonment in jails in India instead,
without a formal order of commutation of his sentence. After
completing twenty years imprisonment (including remissions), he
prayed for release.
 Court held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entirety
of the prisoner’s life.
 In Swami Shraddhananda alias Murali Manohar Mishra
v. State of Karnataka, [2008(13) SCC 767]
 The defendant, in this case, had been found to be guilty
under Section 302 and 201, IPC and was thereby sentenced to
death. After the High court affirmed the sentence, an appeal
was made to the Apex court wherein the judges were of the
prudence that imprisonment for life would serve the ends of
justice better than capital punishment.

 The judges lucidly pronounced that the accused to not be

released until death. The judges said that the accused can be
released at no point of his lifetime as the same would require
an order of commutation under Section 55, IPC or Section 433,
CrPC or pardon under Article 72 or 161 of the Indian
Constitution.
 Union of India v. Sriharan Murughan and others (2015)

 The majority ruled that the High Court ('HC') or the SC could place the
sentence beyond remission for a pre-determined period. This
punishment was only in cases where death sentence seemed too harsh
a punishment and life imprisonment seemed too mild. The minority
disagreed, holding that judicial restriction of remissions to life convicts
amounted to the creation of a new punishment
 Provisions under IPC as per the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013
 370(6),370(7),376(2),376(3),376(A),376(D),376(E)
Solitary Confinement

 Solitary Confinement
 Sec 73 and 74 IPC and Prison Act deals with solitary confinement
 Solitary confinement means “confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or
more a day without meaningful human contact”
 Judicial and Executive for max 3 months
 In case of judicial solitary confinement, the period and frequency of the
confinement is legally defined based on the kind and period of
imprisonment.
 In executive solitary confinement, the jail superintendent has unfettered
discretion to decide the punishment with minimum safeguards.
 Separate confinement and cellular confinement are two forms of
confinement that can be awarded by the superintendent. Both seclude
the prisoner from communication with, but not from the sight of other
prisoners.
 Separate confinement allows one hour exercise and a meal in
association with others, cellular confinement restricts that.
 Effects of Solitary Confinement:
 Solitary confinement is a shortcut to the socio-psychological ‘death’ of prisoners. It
has severe, adverse psychological impact.
 CASES:
 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration And Others1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557
 Sher singh and others v. State of Punjab(1983)
 Shatrugnan Chauhan v. Union of India and another(2014)
 T.V Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1983)
 Kishore Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan(1980)
 Emperor v. Bidha(1923)
 Kehar Singh and other v.State(1986)
 In a landmark judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court on April 28, 2018,
abolished the practice of keeping death row convicts in isolation
immediately after their sentencing. “anarchic and cruel practice which
amounts to torture and can cause immense pain, agony and anxiety” to
inmates. It added: “The convict shall not be segregated till the
sentence of death has become final, conclusive and indefeasible which
cannot be annulled or voided by any judicial or constitutional
procedure.”