Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a legal process where a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime they have committed. In India, capital punishment is allowed for a limited number of crimes, which include murder, rape, terrorism, and treason.

The legal framework for capital punishment in India is primarily governed by the Indian Penal Code, which outlines the circumstances under which capital punishment can be awarded. The Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act also play a role in the application of the death penalty.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860, provides for the death penalty as a punishment for several offences, including murder, terrorism-related offences resulting in death, and treason. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, outlines the procedure for imposing the death penalty in India.

In order for a person to be sentenced to death, the crime must be of an extremely serious nature, and the court must be convinced that no other punishment will be adequate. The death penalty can only be awarded in cases where the crime has resulted in the death of the victim.

In 2015, the Law Commission of India recommended that the death penalty be abolished for all crimes except terrorism-related offences and waging war against the country. However, the government has not yet taken any action on this recommendation.

The process for awarding capital punishment in India involves a trial by a court of law, followed by an appeal process that can extend up to the Supreme Court. The final decision to award the death penalty is made by the President of India, who considers the recommendations of the Home Minister and the Supreme Court before making a decision.

In recent years, there has been a growing movement in India to abolish the death penalty, with several high-profile cases bringing the issue to public attention. However, capital punishment remains a legal option in India, and is still used in certain cases where the courts deem it appropriate.

Meaning Of Capital Punishment

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a legal process where a person is sentenced to death by the state as a punishment for a serious crime they have committed. The most common crimes for which capital punishment is allowed include murder, treason, terrorism, and in some cases, rape.

The process of capital punishment typically involves a trial, where the defendant is found guilty of a crime that is punishable by death. The defendant then goes through an appeals process, which can take several years, before a final decision is made on whether the death penalty will be carried out.

The death penalty is seen as the most severe form of punishment, as it involves taking a person's life, and is often reserved for the most heinous crimes. The process for awarding the death penalty typically involves a trial by a court of law, followed by a series of appeals that can extend over a number of years. Proponents of capital punishment argue that it serves as a deterrent to crime, and that it provides a sense of justice and closure for the victims' families. However, opponents argue that it is a cruel and inhumane punishment, and that it does not effectively deter crime. There are also concerns about the potential for the death penalty to be applied unfairly, with a disproportionate impact on certain communities.

Proponents of capital punishment argue that it serves as a deterrent to crime, and that it provides a sense of justice and closure for the victims' families. However, opponents argue that it is a cruel and inhumane punishment, and that it does not effectively deter crime. There are also concerns about the potential for the death penalty to be applied unfairly, with a disproportionate impact on certain communities.

The use of capital punishment is a controversial issue around the world, with proponents arguing that it is a necessary form of punishment for serious crimes, while opponents argue that it is a cruel and inhumane practice that has no place in a modern society. Many countries have abolished the death penalty in recent years, while others continue to use it in certain circumstances.

Evolution Of Capital Punishment In India

The history of capital punishment in India dates back to ancient times when it was used as a means of punishment for various crimes, including murder, treason, and theft. The use of capital punishment continued throughout the centuries under various rulers and kingdoms, and was eventually codified into the Indian Penal Code in 1860 during the British colonial period.

In the early years of independence, capital punishment remained a common form of punishment in India, with a wide range of crimes punishable by death, including murder, treason, terrorism, and drug trafficking. The Constitution of India also provided for the death penalty as a legal form of punishment, although it was to be used only in the "rarest of rare cases."

After India gained independence in 1947, the legal framework for capital punishment remained largely unchanged, with the death penalty still allowed for a limited number of crimes. However, there have been some changes to the law over the years. For example, in 1955, the death penalty was abolished for offenses related to the violation of the Essential Supplies Act.

In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a significant increase in the use of capital punishment in India, particularly in cases related to terrorism and serious crimes against women. This period also saw a rise in public support for the death penalty, with many calling for its wider use.

In recent years, there has been growing public debate and activism around the issue of capital punishment in India, with many arguing that it is a cruel and inhumane practice that has no place in a modern democracy. In response to this, the Indian Supreme Court has begun to restrict the use of the death penalty, and several states have taken steps towards abolishing it altogether.

Today, the use of capital punishment in India remains a controversial issue, with many arguing that it is a necessary form of punishment for serious crimes, while others argue that it is a violation of human rights and should be abolished altogether. Despite the ongoing debate, the death penalty remains a legal form of punishment in India, although its use is increasingly restricted and subject to scrutiny by the courts.

Capital Punishment: Position In India

The position on capital punishment in India is a complex and evolving one, with a wide range of views and opinions on the issue. While capital punishment is still legal in India, there has been a growing movement towards abolition in recent years, with many arguing that it is a cruel and inhumane practice that has no place in a modern democracy.

Supporters of the death penalty argue that it is a necessary form of punishment for serious crimes, and that it acts as a deterrent to potential offenders. They also point to the fact that the death penalty is still used in many countries around the world, and that India should not be an exception.

However, opponents of the death penalty argue that it is a violation of human rights and that it has no place in a civilized society. They point to the risk of wrongful convictions, the possibility of discrimination in its application, and the fact that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to crime.

In recent years, there has been a growing movement in India to abolish the death penalty, with several high-profile cases bringing the issue to public attention. The Supreme Court of India has also taken a more restrictive stance on the use of the death penalty, laying down strict guidelines for its application and emphasizing the need for careful consideration of mitigating factors.

The use of capital punishment in India is a controversial issue, with a significant section of society calling for its abolition. Critics argue that the death penalty is a cruel and inhumane form of punishment that violates basic human rights, and that it has been applied unfairly and disproportionately to marginalized communities and individuals.

Despite the growing opposition to capital punishment, it remains a legal form of punishment in India, and is still used in cases where the courts deem it appropriate. However, there has been a trend towards restricting the use of the death penalty in recent years, with the Supreme Court of India adopting a more cautious approach and calling for greater scrutiny of cases where the death penalty is being considered.

Overall, the position of capital punishment in India remains a contentious issue, with opinions divided on its efficacy and moral legitimacy. While some argue that it is a necessary form of punishment for the most serious crimes, others believe that it is a violation of human rights and should be abolished altogether.

Death Penalty Crimes In India

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is a legal form of punishment in India that is used for a limited number of crimes.

The Indian Penal Code outlines the crimes that can be punishable by death, which include:

1. Murder:
   Capital punishment can be awarded in cases where a person is found guilty of murder with aggravating circumstances, such as the murder of a public servant, multiple murders, or the murder of a child.
    
2. Rape:
   In 2018, the Indian government introduced a new law that allows for the death penalty in cases where a person is convicted of raping a child under the age of 12.
    
3. Terrorism:
   The death penalty can be awarded in cases where a person is found guilty of committing terrorist acts or waging war against the Indian state.
    
4. Treason:
   Capital punishment can also be awarded in cases where a person is found guilty of acts of sedition or treason against the Indian state.
    
5. Drug trafficking:
   In certain cases, the death penalty can be awarded for drug trafficking offenses.

It is important to note that the use of capital punishment in India is subject to legal and constitutional provisions, and the decision to award the death penalty is made by the courts and the President of India. The use of the death penalty is also subject to ongoing debate and scrutiny, with many calling for its abolition on the grounds that it is a cruel and inhumane form of punishment.

The Doctrine of "Rarest of the Rare Cases"

The "rarest of the rare cases" is a doctrine in Indian law that pertains to the death penalty. It suggests that the death penalty should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases, where the crime is exceptionally heinous, and the circumstances surrounding the crime are such that the imposition of the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment.

The concept of "rarest of the rare cases" was first introduced by the Indian Supreme Court in 1980 in the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. In that case, the Court held that the death penalty should only be imposed in cases where the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. The Court also held that the burden of proving that the case falls within the "rarest of the rare" category lies with the prosecution.

Since the Bachan Singh case, the doctrine of "rarest of the rare cases" has been applied in many cases where the death penalty has been sought. The Indian Supreme Court has emphasized that the death penalty should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases, and that the decision to impose the death penalty should be made only after a careful consideration of all the relevant factors. The court laid down certain guidelines to determine whether a case falls under the rarest of rare category. These guidelines include the nature and circumstances of the crime, the motive behind the crime, the personality of the convict, and the possibility of reform or rehabilitation.

Critics of the doctrine argue that it is too vague and subjective, and that it leaves too much discretion in the hands of judges. They also argue that the death penalty is inherently cruel and inhumane, and that it should be abolished altogether. Supporters of the doctrine argue that it is necessary to ensure that the most serious offenders are held accountable for their crimes, and that it serves as a deterrent to others who might consider committing similar crimes.

The doctrine has been the subject of much debate, with some arguing that the use of the death penalty is never justified, while others believe that it is necessary in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, the rarest of rare doctrine remains an important principle in Indian law and is applied in cases where the death penalty is sought by the prosecution.

Capital Punishment: Provision In Constitutional Law

The Constitution of India provides for the use of capital punishment as a legal form of punishment, although it is to be used only in the "rarest of rare cases." The relevant provision is contained in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Article 21 of the Constitution states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." The phrase "procedure established by law" has been interpreted by the Indian courts to mean that the death penalty can only be awarded in cases where it is provided for by a valid law, and where the procedural safeguards of the law have been followed.

Article 72 of the Constitution also grants the President of India the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment, including the power to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment.

In addition, the Constitution provides for the use of capital punishment in cases of certain offences under the Indian Penal Code, such as murder, treason, terrorism, and some cases of rape. The decision to award the death penalty in these cases is made by the courts and the President of India, and is subject to legal and constitutional provisions, as well as ongoing scrutiny and debate.

The Supreme Court of India has also held that the death penalty should be used only in the "rarest of rare cases," and that it should be reserved for cases where the crime is of an exceptional nature, and where the offender's conduct is so brutal and heinous that it shocks the collective conscience of society.

It is important to note that the use of capital punishment in India is subject to various legal and constitutional provisions, and the decision to award the death penalty is made by the courts and the President of India. The use of the death penalty is also subject to ongoing debate and scrutiny, with many calling for its abolition on the grounds that it is a cruel and inhumane form of punishment.

Supreme Court Landmark Judgement

The Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark judgments related to capital punishment over the years.

Some of the most significant judgments are:

1. Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973):[i]
   In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty should only be awarded if there is no possibility of reformation or rehabilitation of the accused. This judgment emphasized the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the accused before imposing the death penalty.
    
2. Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979):[ii]
   This judgment established that the burden of proof in death penalty cases rests with the prosecution, and that the court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused before awarding the death penalty.
    
3. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980):[iii]
   This case is considered a landmark judgment as it laid down the "rarest of rare" doctrine for the imposition of the death penalty. According to this doctrine, the death penalty should only be awarded in the rarest of rare cases where the alternative option of life imprisonment is not a just punishment.
    
4. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983):[iv]
   This judgment established guidelines for the application of the "rarest of rare" doctrine, stating that the death penalty should only be awarded in cases where the crime is of the "most extreme gravity" and where the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances.
    
5. Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009):[v]
   This case is significant as it provided guidelines for the courts to follow when considering the delay in the execution of death row convicts. The Supreme Court ruled that delay in the execution of the death penalty can be a ground for commutation of the sentence to life imprisonment.
    
6. Mohd. Arif v. Supreme Court of India (2014):[vi]
   In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty should only be awarded in cases where there is no possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the accused, and where the crime is of a particularly heinous nature.
    
7. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014):[vii]
   This judgment struck down a provision of the law that allowed for the mandatory imposition of the death penalty in cases of certain offences, stating that the decision to award the death penalty must be made on a case-by-case basis, and that the court must take into account the individual circumstances of the case and the accused.

Conclusion
In conclusion, capital punishment remains a highly contentious and debated issue in India. While the use of the death penalty is legally permissible for certain crimes under the Indian Penal Code and the Constitution of India, its application is subject to strict legal and constitutional provisions, as well as ongoing scrutiny and debate.

Capital punishment in India remains a controversial issue, with ongoing debates and discussions around its moral legitimacy, effectiveness as a deterrent, and potential for wrongful convictions. Despite this, the use of the death penalty continues to be legal in India for certain heinous crimes, subject to due process of law and the principles of natural justice.

The Indian Constitution provides for the right to life and personal liberty, but also allows for the use of capital punishment in certain circumstances. The Supreme Court of India has established important legal and constitutional principles for the application of the death penalty in the country, including the "rarest of rare" doctrine and guidelines for weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark judgments related to capital punishment, laying down important principles and guidelines for the application of the death penalty in the country. These judgments have emphasized the importance of due process, the burden of proof, and the "rarest of rare" doctrine, which states that capital punishment should only be awarded in cases where the crime is particularly heinous and the public interest demands it.

In recent years, there has been a growing call for the abolition of the death penalty in India, with many arguing that it has no place in a modern and progressive society. However, the use of capital punishment in India remains a complex and contentious issue, and it is likely to continue to be the subject of debate and discussion in the years to come.

References

• https://blog.ipleaders.in/capital-punishment-in-india/
• https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/death-penalty-2
• https://indianlawportal.co.in/capital-punishment/

End-Notes:

1. (1973) 1 SCC 20
2. 1979 AIR 916
3. AIR1980SC898
4. 413 1983 SCC
5. (2009) 6 SCC 498
6. 9 SCC 737
7. (1989) 1SCC 204

Written By: Sanjay Kumar Sah