RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF

LAW, PUNJAB

SEMESTER FIFTH
CRIMINAL LAW PROJECT
RESEARCH PAPER: - ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

VINAY KUMAR DR. ANKIT KAUSHIK
ROLL NUMBER – 21231 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
RGNUL, PUNJAB

1
 ACKNOWLEGEMENT

As a result of the research paper, the question "Analysis of capital punishment" was
answered. To that end, I was fortunate to have received the necessary direction and
assistance during the whole project.

Being able to use the library and all of the school's facilities, such as a comfortable
working space, is a luxury we can now take use of. Having professors on hand is also a
benefit.

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to Professor (Dr.) Anand Pawar, the Vice
Chancellor, for giving me the chance to present my thoughts and skills at RGNUL. I
would also want to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Ankit Kaushik for his assistance
and for allowing me to participate in the project at RGNUL.

I would want to express my gratitude to all of the professors for their consistent support,
help, and direction, which is what ultimately led to the successful completion of our
project work. I would want to express my gratitude to everyone who assisted me with my
study by guiding me through the process of using the digital library services available at
the IT lab and the libraries.

In addition, I would want to express my appreciation to both my team and the class for
providing me with support and inspiration during the project.

Vinay Kumar

2
 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

This document validates that Vinay Kumar, a bona fide undergraduate at the Rajiv
Gandhi National Institute of Law in Punjab, is the author of the assignment based on case
of ”Analysis of capital punishment".

Vinay Kumar

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEGEMENT......................................................................................................2

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE...............................................................................................3

1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................4

2. CRIMES PUNISHABLE BY DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA.......................................6

1) Aggravated Murder......................................................................................................6

2) Terrorism-Related Offenses.........................................................................................7

3) Aggravated Rape.........................................................................................................7

4) Treason........................................................................................................................8

5) Kidnapping..................................................................................................................8

3. Delay in Execution of Death Sentence............................................................................9

4. CAUSES FOR DELAY IN EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCE.........................11

5. INTERNATIONAL VIEWS ON DEATH PENALTY.................................................12

6. POSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA............................................................14

7. CASE LAWS.................................................................................................................16

8. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................17

BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................18

4
1. INTRODUCTION

Throughout the annals of history, we have borne witness to the ebb and flow of numerous
dynasties spanning across the vast expanse of centuries. Yet, amidst the vicissitudes of
time, one enduring thread has persisted unwaveringly: the resolute utilization of the death
sentence as a means to administer justice.

When we delve into the historical epoch of the Mauryan Dynasty, we encounter a guiding
principle that governed the administration of justice, namely, the concept of retributive
justice, wherein the punishment inflicted upon an individual was commensurate with the
harm caused, adhering to the principle of "lex talionis" - an eye for an eye, a hand for a
hand, and so forth. Throughout subsequent dynasties, a myriad of punitive measures were
employed, encompassing the act of tethering a lifeless cadaver to an equine creature, the
severance of the cranium or any other anatomical appendage, and the utilization of an
elephant's formidable weight to trample upon the physique of the unfortunate individual.
Each of these methodologies exhibited a profound degree of cruelty. When viewed
through a global lens, it is widely acknowledged that King Hammurabi of Babylon holds
the distinction of being the inaugural individual to systematically establish a
comprehensive set of criminal laws, which notably encompassed the imposition of capital
punishment.

Alternative means of executing individuals, such as the utilization of the guillotine in the
esteemed nation of France, the act of beheading in the regions encompassing the Middle
East, the application of electrocution in the vast expanse of Russia, and sundry analogous
methodologies, have been employed throughout the annals of time in diverse corners of
the globe. In the contemporary era, characterized by the codification of laws and the
heightened moral consciousness of individuals, one must critically ponder whether the
death penalty truly represents the most fitting and judicious means of retribution. Despite
the proliferation of numerous advocacy groups vehemently advocating for the abolition
of capital punishment, it remains distressingly prevalent in numerous nations across the
globe. Within the confines of its Charter of Rights, the esteemed United Nations has
deemed the practice of capital punishment, commonly referred to as the death penalty, as

5
a grave transgression against the very essence of humanity. The United Nations has
furthermore beseeched its constituent nations to abolish the practice of capital
punishment. Notwithstanding the provision enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, which explicitly prohibits the government from exercising its prerogative to
deprive an individual of their life, it is noteworthy that India, as a constituent member of
the United Nations (UN), has regrettably refrained from completely renouncing the
practice of capital punishment. As a result of this, India's global position regarding the
moratorium on capital punishment, both within the General Assembly and the Human
Rights Council, has consistently opposed the resolution, asserting that it contravenes the
statutory laws of the nation, wherein an execution is solely implemented under
exceedingly exceptional circumstances. India has assumed this stance not only within the
General Assembly but also within the esteemed Human Rights Council.1

The legal process commonly referred to as a death sentence entails the imposition of
capital punishment upon an individual by the state as a punitive measure for their
commission of a criminal offense. When an individual is bestowed with a death sentence,
it signifies that a judge has deemed it appropriate to administer this specific form of
retribution. However, the actual implementation of said sentence is commonly denoted as
an execution. Capital crimes, more commonly referred to as capital offenses, denote
criminal acts that carry the potentiality of being met with the ultimate penalty of capital
punishment. The etymology of the term "capital" traces its origins to the Latin word
"capitalist," denoting a concept pertaining to the cranium or head. The etymology of the
English term "capital" can be traced back to its Latin counterpart. The aforementioned
statement pertains to a particular phrase that prescribes the ultimate punishment of capital
execution upon an individual found culpable of a crime. It may also allude to a state or
situation that is perceived to be of a lethal nature, alongside a prognostication of an
individual's imminent demise.

The prerogative to validate a capital punishment lies within the purview of the esteemed
High Courts of India, as stipulated by the provisions enshrined in section 368 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. The imposition of capital punishment is typically reserved for

1
a. Bedi, R. S. (2017). The Death Penalty in India: A lethal lottery. Oxford University Press.

6
individuals convicted of the heinous act of homicide, those found guilty of engaging in
acts of aggression against the state, and in exceptional circumstances that are colloquially
known as the "most extraordinary and infrequent instances."

2. CRIMES PUNISHABLE BY DEATH PENALTY IN

INDIA

1) Aggravated Murder

As per the provisions delineated in Article 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the act of
murder is deemed a transgression of the law, thereby rendering the perpetrator
susceptible to legal ramifications and potential criminal prosecution. 2 In an analogous
scenario, harkening back to the year 1980, a legal dispute of notable significance
transpired under the appellation of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab. In this judicial
affair, the esteemed Supreme Court of India, in its sagacity, rendered a momentous
pronouncement. It decreed that the imposition of the death penalty, as an exercise of state
authority, could only be deemed constitutionally permissible if it were to be employed as
an extraordinary measure, reserved exclusively for the most exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances, thereby ensuring its status as an exceptional and uncommon
form of retribution.

In certain jurisdictions, the capital punishment is imposed upon individuals who commit
the following categories of homicide:

(i) In accordance with the provisions delineated in Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code
(1860), it is stipulated that a collective assembly of individuals, commonly referred to as
a gang, may be subjected to the ultimate penalty of death, should any of its constituents
perpetrate the act of homicide whilst engaged in the execution of an armed robbery,
provided that said act of murder transpires concomitantly with the commission of the
aforementioned criminal offense.

2
Indian Penal Code. (1860). Section 302.

7
In the event that an individual is unlawfully seized with the intention of extorting
monetary compensation, and said individual unfortunately meets their demise as a result,
the individual responsible for perpetrating this heinous act shall be liable to face the
ultimate penalty of capital punishment. The provision delineated in Article 364A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, holds significance within the legal framework of India.

Pursuant to the provisions outlined in Article 6 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Amendment Ordinance of 2004, it is stipulated that an individual shall be liable to capital
punishment should they have been affiliated with an organization and employed firearms
or ammunition resulting in the demise of another person.3

(iv) In accordance with the statutes of the various states, an individual who engages in
any form of orchestrated illicit endeavor resulting in the demise of another individual is
liable to be subjected to the capital punishment.

The act of engaging in sati or aiding and abetting another individual in the commission of
sati is deemed a capital offense in its own right, as stipulated by Article 4(1) of The
Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act.

2) Terrorism-Related Offenses

In accordance with the provisions outlined in Section 3(b) of the Explosive Substances
(Amendment) Act of 2001, engaging in the utilization of any explosive substance falling
within a designated classification, which possesses the capacity to jeopardize the well-
being of fellow individuals or inflict substantial harm upon property, is deemed a grave
offense warranting the most severe penalty, namely capital punishment.

3) Aggravated Rape

(i) As per the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013, it is stipulated that an individual
who perpetrates the heinous act of rape and, in the process, leads to the demise of the
victim or subjects them to a state of prolonged unconsciousness, commonly referred to as
a "persistent vegetative state," shall be subject to the gravest form of retribution, namely
3
Constitution of India. (1950). Article 21.

8
capital punishment. This particular provision has been duly incorporated within the
framework of the aforementioned act.

(ii) In light of the infamous Nirbhaya Gang Rape incident of 2012, it was ascertained that
the perpetration of multiple instances of gang rape shall henceforth be subject to the
gravest of penalties, namely capital punishment, as stipulated under Section 9 of the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013.

(iii) The heinous incident involving the sexual assault perpetrated against an eight-year-
old Kashmiri girl, commonly referred to as the Asifa Bano case, served as the catalyst for
an amendment to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018. This amendment
stipulated that the act of raping females below the age of twelve could potentially warrant
the imposition of capital punishment, while also establishing a minimum sentence of
twenty years of incarceration, accompanied by a monetary penalty. The aforementioned
alteration was instigated in response to the Asifa Bano case.

4) Treason

Engaging in hostilities against the established governing body or endeavoring to initiate

armed conflict against said governing body, along with providing assistance to officers,
soldiers, or personnel affiliated with the Navy, Army, or Air Forces in inciting rebellion,
constitutes a transgression of such magnitude that it is met with the gravest of
consequences, namely capital punishment. Both of these transgressions can potentially be
perpetrated during one's tenure in the military. The provisions delineated in Articles 121
and 136 of the Indian Penal Code, a legislative enactment dating back to the year 1860,
warrant our attention.

5) Kidnapping

Whether the perpetrator merely issues threats of harm or proceeds to inflict physical harm
upon the victim, the act of unlawfully restraining or abducting an individual constitutes a
criminal offense that carries the potential consequence of capital punishment being

9
imposed upon the offender. This particular provision can be located within the confines
of Article 364A of the Indian Penal Code.

It is imperative to duly acknowledge and contemplate the verdict rendered by the

esteemed Indian Supreme Court in the landmark case of Bachan Singh vs. State of
Punjab (1980), as it bears significant relevance in the discernment of the circumstances
under which specific offenses may warrant the imposition of capital punishment.

3. Delay in Execution of Death Sentence

The temporal deferral of the implementation of a capital punishment ought to be duly

acknowledged as a justifiable circumstance warranting contemplation for a commutation
of sentence, thereby transitioning from the ultimate penalty of death to a protracted
period of incarceration. It is imperative to consider the psychological distress that shall be
imposed upon the individual in question throughout the duration of the prescribed
penalty. The Supreme Court, in its various rulings, has established that a protracted
postponement in carrying out the death penalty, resulting in the condemned individual
enduring the degrading consequences of oscillating between hope and despair, renders
the act of capital punishment excessively cruel to be imposed. Consequently, this entitles
the prisoner to a more lenient sentence, namely a lifetime of incarceration. Put
differently, the highest judicial body, known as the Supreme Court, has determined that
the incarcerated individual is deserving of the more lenient punishment, specifically a life
sentence. The latest scholarly findings indicate that protracted postponement of a death
row convict's trial engenders a state of ineffectuality in the very imposition of the death
penalty, thereby subjecting the inmate and their kin to an escalated magnitude of
psychological distress.4

In accordance with a scholarly investigation pertaining to capital punishment,

disseminated in January of the year 2018, it was reported that as of the conclusion of
December in the year 2017, a total of 371 individuals who have been found guilty were
found to be residing on the threshold of execution in India. It is noteworthy to mention
4
Bhattacharyya, Sudipta. (2018). "The Death Penalty in India: A Review of Contemporary Developments."
Asian Journal of Criminology, 13(1), 15-30.

10
that the most ancient case in this context dates back to the year 1991, signifying a span of
27 years since its inception. Nevertheless, over the course of the past thirteen years, a
mere quartet of incarcerated individuals who were condemned to the ultimate penalty of
capital punishment have been duly executed. One of these incarcerated individuals was
found culpable for perpetrating an offense against a minor, while the remaining trio were
held accountable for engaging in acts of terrorism. As per a scholarly investigation
disseminated by the esteemed Law Commission of India in 2015, it has been observed
that individuals condemned to death in India persistently encounter noteworthy
protraction in the legal proceedings, the appellate process, and ultimately, the
dispensation of executive clemency.

Based on a comprehensive study undertaken by the esteemed Center on the Death

Penalty, it has been determined that the cohort of 373 incarcerated individuals presently
awaiting their ultimate fate through execution have collectively experienced an average
duration of five years in anticipation of their respective legal proceedings. A total of 127
individuals were subjected to a protracted legal process spanning over a duration of five
years or more, while a subset of 54 offenders endured an even more protracted ordeal,
with their trials extending beyond the ten-year mark. The extent of the delay was such
that a malefactor, in a singular occurrence, had endured a cumulative period of 21 years
on death row, awaiting the implementation of capital punishment, owing to the
prodigious magnitude of the delay. In the matter pertaining to the heinous gangrape and
subsequent demise of Nirbhaya, the esteemed Supreme Court, on the 4th of May in the
year 2018, reaffirmed its prior ruling to impose the ultimate penalty of death upon two
out of the four perpetrators who were duly convicted in this grave incident. Yakub
Memon, the final individual to face capital punishment in the year 2015, was condemned
to death subsequent to being convicted for his involvement in the 1993 Mumbai Terrorist
Attack, a tragic event that claimed the lives of 257 individuals. This marked the ultimate
occasion in which an execution was duly executed.

11
4. CAUSES FOR DELAY IN EXECUTION OF
DEATH SENTENCE

The protracted procedure of verifying the individuals who have been condemned to
capital punishment may serve as a potential catalyst for temporal prolongation. The
foremost determinant that engenders protraction in the implementation of capital
punishment for individuals found guilty of crimes. Several additional factors to be taken
into account encompass the cognitive and corporeal welfare of condemned individuals
who are in the midst of awaiting execution. It is of utmost importance that these
individuals are adequately prepared, both in terms of their physical condition and mental
state, prior to the implementation of their capital punishment. Furthermore, it is
conceivable. The subject of contention lies in the psychological well-being of individuals
condemned to capital punishment, as they endure profound distress throughout the
entirety of their trial and subsequent sentencing. As per a pronouncement emanating from
the apex court of India, the manifestation of excessive and unwarranted temporal lapses
serves as a catalyst in the perpetration of the abhorrent act of torture.5

Given the protracted duration of court deliberations, it becomes imperative for an

individual who has been deemed culpable to seek therapeutic intervention, owing to the
psychological anguish endured as a consequence. The prolonged period of uncertainty
gradually erodes one's confidence in their survival, thereby necessitating the pursuit of
therapeutic measures.

There have been documented occurrences wherein individuals condemned to death row
have experienced repeated delays in the execution of their sentences, leading them to
express both metaphorically and literally their desire for the authorities to proceed with
their capital punishment, thus seeking relief from their prolonged suffering. In the
aforementioned legal matter of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and others versus the State of
the National Capital Territory of Delhi, it pertains to an individual of Khalistani
affiliation who has endured a prolonged period of incarceration within Tihar Jail. This
5
George, D. K. (2015). "Capital Punishment in India: A Critical Analysis." Indian Journal of Criminology and
Criminalistics, 36(1), 67-78.

12
individual has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, a mental disorder that has manifested
due to the distressing circumstances surrounding the repeated deferral of his execution.
Insofar as the deferment of the execution persists, the fortitude of the incarcerated
individual, who has been sentenced to capital punishment, shall progressively wane,
ultimately culminating in a circumstance wherein he shall be compelled to beseech the
governing powers to effectuate his demise. The remarkable protraction of his conviction
on March 31, 2014 resulted in the Supreme Court's decision to commute his capital
punishment to a lifetime of incarceration. 6 Consequently, he evaded capital punishment.
The individual in question was subjected to a custodial sentence as a direct consequence
of the protracted duration in which his plea for leniency was deliberated upon, coupled
with his affliction of schizophrenia.

5. INTERNATIONAL VIEWS ON DEATH PENALTY

The utilization of capital punishment as a retributive measure for illicit conduct has
encountered substantial opposition from numerous nations and prominent entities. The
General Assembly of the United Nations has underscored the imperative for a superlative
standard of equitable judicial proceedings in cases involving capital punishment,
emphasizing its universal applicability across all nations. The Economic and Social
Council of the United Nations has issued a formal request to its member nations, urging
them to abolish the practice of capital punishment. Nevertheless, the council underscored
the imperative for member nations harboring a proclivity towards retaining capital
punishment to ensure the expeditious provision of due process for the accused. The
utilization of capital punishment has been rendered illegal within the majority of the
constituent nations comprising the European Union. The Thirteenth Protocol to the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
was duly presented to member nations on the third day of May in the year 2002, with the
noble objective of unequivocally abolishing the practice of capital punishment in all
conceivable circumstances. This action was undertaken with the intention of completely
eradicating the aforementioned practice.

6
Government of India. (2019). Report on Capital Punishment in India. Ministry of Home Affairs.

13
A multitude of international legal frameworks espoused the imperative of abolishing the
death penalty. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promulgated in 1948, and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, established in 1966, both espouse
the fundamental principle that no individual ought to be subjected to the abhorrent
practices of torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment. The aforementioned provisions can be located within Article 5 of the
Declaration of 1948 and Article 7 of the Covenant of 1966. As per the provisions
delineated in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the imposition of
capital punishment is deemed to be an inherently inhumane, severe, and degrading
modality of retribution that transgresses the fundamental entitlements of the individual
who stands accused of an offense. This perspective has garnered significant acceptance
within scholarly circles. The fundamental entitlement to the preservation of life, personal
autonomy, and safeguarding from harm is unequivocally affirmed for the entirety of the
human populace, as per the provisions delineated in Article 3 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Despite the existence of an extensive catalogue of over
two hundred offenses that warranted capital punishment in England during the waning
years of the eighteenth century, the eventual eradication of this practice was ultimately
realized in 1965 through the enactment of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act.7

India has consistently expressed its dissent towards the United Nations resolution
advocating for a moratorium on the imposition of capital punishment. This phenomenon
can be attributed to the inherent prerogative bestowed upon each constituent state within
the United Nations to exercise its autonomous authority in determining its own legal
framework and corresponding punitive measures. In the Indian context, the imposition of
capital punishment is primarily reserved for exceedingly rare circumstances, wherein the
transgression perpetrated is of such an egregious magnitude that it profoundly disturbs
the ethical fabric of the entire society. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has
consistently emphasized, in his reports pertaining to the moratorium on the death penalty,
the efforts made by the Supreme Court of India to curtail the imposition of capital
punishment and safeguard the rights of individuals condemned to death. In essence, the
Supreme Court of India has endeavored to safeguard the fundamental rights of
7
Sharma, A. (2020). "Recent Trends in Capital Punishment in India." The Times of India, May 5, 2020.

14
individuals who have been subjected to the gravest of penalties, namely capital
punishment.

6. POSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA

The quantum of individuals subjected to capital punishment in India has witnessed a

substantial decline over the course of the past two decades.

The fundamental entitlement to life and individual autonomy, encompassing the privilege
to exist with utmost respect and honor, is unequivocally ensured to the inhabitants of
India pursuant to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The fundamental principle
enshrined within this article asserts that the deprivation of an individual's right to life or
personal liberty is impermissible, save for instances wherein such deprivation aligns with
the prescribed procedures that have been duly established by the governing legal
framework. This postulation posits that the sole circumstance under which an individual's
entitlement to life and personal autonomy may be subject to scrutiny is contingent upon
their engagement in unlawful activities. Henceforth, in the pursuit of legal principles and
the preservation of societal harmony, the state possesses the authority to withhold or
curtail the very right to existence, provided that such actions adhere to the prescribed
procedures as dictated by the legal framework. Nevertheless, it is imperative that this
particular methodology aligns itself with the "due process" criterion as set forth in the
landmark 1978 legal dispute between Maneka Gandhi and the Union of India. The
termination of an individual's sanctified existence necessitates an approach that is
characterized by principles of impartiality, justice, and rationality. In doing so, it
transgresses the inherent reverence attributed to the essence of existence. In the
celebrated legal matter of Mithu v. the State of Punjab (2001), the esteemed Supreme
Court of India rendered a verdict of great significance. It was determined that Article 303
of the Constitution, which had hitherto been considered valid, was deemed to be in
contravention of the sacrosanct Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The proclamation
in question has been disseminated to the general public.

15
Nonetheless, it is the non-governmental organizations in India that are spearheading the
endeavor to safeguard human rights and avert the imposition of inhumane, degrading, and
severe penalties. Despite the judiciary's establishment of the doctrine of "rarest of rare
cases" and its assertion that the death penalty should only be imposed in instances of
extraordinary and aggravating circumstances, particularly when the offenses are of a
highly serious nature, the actual implementation of this principle, as demonstrated by
numerous cases, is in contravention of constitutional provisions. The imposition of the
death penalty is predicated upon the presence of extraordinary and exacerbating
circumstances, wherein the transgressions committed are of an exceedingly severe and
profound nature. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, an esteemed legal luminary and erstwhile
adjudicator of the apex court of India, harbored a profound aversion towards the
utilization of capital punishment. Justice Iyer contends that the bestowal of life is divinely
ordained, with the corollary that the prerogative to terminate life also rests within the
purview of the divine.8 It is impermissible for the state to engage in the act of terminating
an individual's life, regardless of the prevailing circumstances. The implementation of
capital punishment by the state is deemed to be morally reprehensible and contrary to the
principles of humanity. He proceeded to articulate that the nation led by Gandhi ought to
eradicate the practice of capital punishment, thereby serving as a paradigm for others to
emulate. In accordance with legal statutes, it is imperative to acknowledge that the state is
prohibited from carrying out an execution through the method of suspending an
individual from a noose, even if such an order is issued by a judge.

When juxtaposed with the socio-cultural milieu of India, the lamentable condition
endured by individuals undergoing the execution of their capital sentences is undeniably
disconcerting. As per the findings of various studies conducted by multiple groups, it has
been observed that death row inmates endure both psychological and physical torment
while awaiting information regarding their impending demise. By examining the case of
Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar, an individual embroiled in the 1993 bombing incident in
Delhi, and subsequently enduring a protracted period of incarceration until his capital
punishment was commuted to life imprisonment in 2014, one can discern the plausibility

8
Amnesty International India. (n.d.). "Death Penalty in India." https://www.amnesty.org.in/death-penalty-
in-india/

16
of such a scenario. The incarcerated individuals are purportedly in a state of "cognitive
demise" as they endure the interminable anticipation of their impending execution, a date
that persistently eludes them despite its ostensibly fixed arrangement.

7. CASE LAWS

In the landmark case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980), Justice Bhagwati
eloquently expressed his dissenting viewpoint, asserting that the imposition of the death
penalty inherently suffers from the perils of arbitrariness, discrimination, and
capriciousness. This statement was articulated within the framework of the particular case
at hand. He proceeded to assert that in the majority of instances, individuals of affluence
and lavishness possessed the means to elude apprehension by the gallows, while it was
the destitute who faced the grim fate of execution by hanging. The aforementioned action
unequivocally transgresses the provisions set forth in both Article 14 and Article 16 of
the Constitution of the United States. In the matter of Shashi Nayar vs. Union of India
(1991), the question of the death penalty was once more brought into contention,
specifically regarding the weight placed upon the Bachan Singh case as elucidated in the
35th Law Commission Report. Nevertheless, the court, in its discerning wisdom, deemed
it unfit to entertain the aforementioned challenge, justifiably asserting that the temporal
context was ill-suited for the consideration of said entreaty, thereby summarily
dismissing the case. Furthermore, the contention that deeming the act of capital
punishment by means of hanging as lacking in humanity and exhibiting cruelty was met
with non-acceptance.

In the recent pronouncement rendered by the esteemed Supreme Court of India in the
matter of Shatrughan Chauhan vs. Union of India (2014), a set of delineations were
expounded upon, pertaining to the modus operandi through which a capital punishment
may be transformed into a sentence of lifelong incarceration, devoid of any prospect of
release. The analogous principle was employed in the instance of Union of India vs.
Sriharan (2015), colloquially recognized as the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. In this
particular instance, the esteemed Supreme Court of India has made a significant alteration
to the fate of the individuals responsible for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. The court,

17
in its wisdom, has deemed it appropriate to modify the original sentence of capital
punishment to one of life imprisonment.

8. CONCLUSION

I am in complete agreement with the proposition posited by the Law Commission in its
262nd Report. In its 262nd Report, the esteemed Law Commission has put forth a
compelling argument in favor of the complete eradication of the death penalty, save for
instances directly associated with acts of terrorism. This occurrence transpired as a
consequence of the implementation of capital punishment upon Yakub Abdul Razak
Memon, who was subjected to hanging during the initial hours of the 30th of July 2015,
notwithstanding the endeavors of his advocates to impede the execution and modify his
sentence to one of perpetual incarceration. The legislative measure enacted by the Tripura
Assembly has similarly advocated for the complete abolition of capital punishment across
the entirety of India. Furthermore, it is imperative to establish unequivocal criteria
pertaining to the expeditious implementation of death warrants within a specified
timeframe. In the hypothetical scenario of an unjustifiable prolongation (excluding
instances related to acts of terrorism), it is imperative to establish provisions that would
allow for the commutation of a capital punishment to a life imprisonment, contingent
upon the mental well-being of the convicted individual. The inclusion of political
motivations in the determination of an individual's capital punishment, as exemplified in
the recent instance involving Yakub Memon, is deemed to be an intolerable
circumstance. Supreme above all other considerations, it is solely the omnipotent
progenitor who possesses the prerogative to terminate the existence of Homo sapiens
inhabiting the terrestrial realm; the governmental apparatus or any other constituent
thereof lacks the capacity to wield such dominion.

Consequently, the utilization of capital punishment can be deemed as a violation of the

principles enshrined within the realm of human rights, thus constituting a transgression
against the collective welfare of humanity. By virtue of the divine bestowment of life
upon humanity, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge that no governing entity, be it a
nation or state, possesses the rightful jurisdiction to deprive individuals of this sacred gift.

18
Consequently, it is imperative to acknowledge that the implementation of capital
punishment ought to be deemed antithetical to constitutional principles and a
transgression against the fundamental tenets of human rights. The government bears the
responsibility of duly considering the adverse aspects associated with the implementation
of capital punishment and must undertake the requisite actions to expunge provisions
pertaining to the death penalty from the legal code. Due to the protracted duration of the
legal proceedings pertaining to a capital punishment verdict, the individuals who have
been condemned endure a distressing ordeal that encompasses both psychological and
physiological anguish. This compels them to metaphorically and practically beseech for
their own demise. It is deemed utterly impermissible for any individual, regardless of
their legal culpability, to be subjected to such a precarious predicament. Despite the
declining figures pertaining to individuals who have been executed through the
implementation of capital punishment, it is imperative to acknowledge that significant
efforts are still required to expedite the proceedings for those currently awaiting their fate
on death row. Furthermore, it is crucial for India to align itself with its international
commitments in this regard, necessitating further action.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

 Bedi, R. S. (2017). The Death Penalty in India: A lethal lottery. Oxford University
Press.

Academic Journals:

 Bhattacharyya, Sudipta. (2018). "The Death Penalty in India: A Review of

Contemporary Developments." Asian Journal of Criminology, 13(1), 15-30.
 George, D. K. (2015). "Capital Punishment in India: A Critical Analysis." Indian
Journal of Criminology and Criminalistics, 36(1), 67-78.

Government Reports:

19
  Government of India. (2019). Report on Capital Punishment in India. Ministry of
Home Affairs.

Legal Documents:

 Constitution of India. (1950). Article 21.

 Indian Penal Code. (1860). Section 302.

News Articles:

 Sharma, A. (2020). "Recent Trends in Capital Punishment in India." The Times of

India, May 5, 2020.

Websites:

 Amnesty International India. (n.d.). "Death Penalty in India."

https://www.amnesty.org.in/death-penalty-in-india/ (Make sure to include the
access date if the content may change over time.)

20