Abstract
The death penalty, or capital punishment, has been used for centuries as a punishment for serious crimes. In the past, if a person committed a brutal or violent crime, they were often sentenced to death. This was thought to scare others and stop them from committing such crimes. But today, there is a lot of debate about whether the death penalty should be removed. The Constitution of India started in 1950. Before that, under British rule, the death penalty was given more often. Even after independence, for the first five years, capital punishment was given for serious crimes. But later, the Indian Constitution changed the punishment for many crimes, depending on how cruel the crime was. Today, people’s thinking has changed. Many now believe that the death penalty is wrong and goes against human rights. Life is a gift from God, and no one should have the power to take it away. So, the death penalty should be seen as a crime against both the Constitution and humanity. The government should understand the negative effects of the death penalty and try to remove it from the law. Also, it takes a long time for courts to give a death sentence. During this time, the prisoners suffer a lot of mental stress. Some even start asking for death themselves. No one should go through such pain. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution gives every citizen the right to life and personal freedom. No one should be denied this right. There is also a big risk that innocent people might get the death penalty, especially those who are poor and cannot afford skilled lawyers. These individuals often get unfair trials because they do not have access to good legal help.
Keywords- Death penalty, Misuse of Capital punishment, right to life, Heinous crimes, Article 21, Judicial fairness and crime prevention.
INTRODUCTION
In every country, laws are made to protect people and these laws help to maintain peace and order within the society. To ensure smooth functioning, every country creates a legal system and constitution. If someone breaks the law, they face punishment based on how serious their crime is. The death penalty is also known as capital punishment and it is a one of the most severe forms of punishment. The idea behind this punishment is to give justice and stop others from doing the same crime. The united sates were of the first countries where the death penalty’s legality was challenged. Some states banned it completely, believing it to be cruel and outdated. In India, it is allowed under section 53 of Indian penal code (IPC), and section 368 of code of criminal procedure (CrPC) gives the high courts the power to approve it. It is given only in extreme cases like terrorism, rape. Or murder where the crime is so brutal that it shakes public feelings. However, in recent years, many people and human rights groups have questioned whether this punishment is fair or necessary in modern times. One of the biggest problems is the long delay in court trials. Many prisoners wait for years to know if they will be hanged or not. This causes great mental pain not just to the prisoner, but also to their family. Even the supreme court of India has said that this delay is cruel and sometimes changes the death sentence to life imprisonment. According to data available up to 2017, nearly 371 prisoners in India were waiting to be executed. Some of their cases were pending for decades. For example, in one old case from 1991, it took 13 years to confirm death sentences for just four people, even though the crimes were serious and one of man who raped a minor. In another case in 2018, the Supreme Court gave the death sentence to two people for rape and murder, but many organizations opposed this decision, saying it was not the right way to deliver justice. In many cases, people who are poor or uneducated cannot afford good lawyers. They face unfair trials and are at a higher risk of being wrongly sentenced to death. This is one reason why many countries around the world have chosen to abolish capital punishment completely. Over 100 countries have removed it from their legal systems, believing it goes against human dignity and rights. India has not yet removed the death penalty, and it has also opposed proposals by the United Nations to end it worldwide. But the Indian Supreme Court has clearly said that the death sentence should be given only in the rarest of rare cases, where no other punishment seems fair.
Positive aspect in favour of the death penalty- Some people think the death penalty is still important, not just in India but around the world. They believe that in very serious crimes like murder or rape, giving the death sentence is the right thing to do. They feel that such punishment creates fear in other criminals and helps stop future crimes. They also think that if a person has done something so wrong, they should not be allowed to live in society. Giving them the death penalty is seen as justice for the victims and sends a strong message to everyone that crime will not be tolerated.
Negative aspect in favour of the death penalty- Sometimes, our justice system makes mistakes, and innocent people get punished. Because they don’t have the right help or can’t prove they didn’t do the crime, they may even get the death sentence by error. This is very unfair, as a person who didn’t do anything wrong may lose their life. That’s why many people and countries believe the death penalty should not be used. They say that even those who did bad things should get a chance to change. If they stay in jail, they can think about their mistakes and feel sorry. Giving them another chance may help them become better people.
Machhi Singh v. state of Punjab (1983)- a family dispute led to the tragic killing of seventeen people. The Supreme Court used this case to explain when the death penalty should be given. The Court talked about two types of factors aggravating and mitigating. Aggravating factors are serious reasons that support giving the death penalty, such as when a murder is planned in advance, done with extreme cruelty, or when the victim is a public servant like a police officer, whether on duty or off duty. On the other hand, mitigating factors are reasons that may reduce the punishment. These include the background and personal situation of the accused, such as being poor, under stress, or showing signs of improvement. The Court said both the nature of the crime and the situation of the person who committed it must be carefully looked at. This case helped make the “rarest of rare” rule clearer for future death penalty cases.
Shabnam v. Union of India- The court gave the death penalty to Shabnam, making her the first woman in independent India to face hanging under the criminal justice system. This case goes back to 2008, when Shabnam, along with her lover, planned and carried out the murder of seven members of her own family. The reason behind the crime was that her family was against her relationship and refused to let her marry the man she loved. As a result, she took part in a brutal and planned killing, which included even a small child. The Court considered this extreme cruelty and careful planning as an aggravating factor, which made the crime fall under the “rarest of rare” category. Shabnam later requested mercy from the President of India, but her plea was rejected. She is now expected to be executed, possibly becoming the first woman to be hanged in modern Indian legal history.
Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh- Tche Supreme Court made an important decision about giving the death penalty. The Court said that in murder cases, the usual punishment should be life imprisonment, not the death sentence. The death penalty should only be used in very rare and special situations. The Court also made it clear that if a judge decides to give the death penalty, they must explain the special reasons for doing so. This case helped set the rule that life imprisonment is the normal punishment, and capital punishment is only given in the most serious and exceptional cases.
Vinay Sharma v. Union of India- also known as the Nirbhaya gang rape case, the entire country was deeply shocked by the cruelty of the crime. This tragic incident happened in Delhi during the cold winter of 2012. A young woman was attacked and raped on a moving bus by six men. The attackers also used an iron rod to cause serious internal injuries and later threw her, badly hurt and without clothes, onto the road. She suffered extreme physical and mental pain and sadly passed away from her injuries. When the case came to court, one of the accused died by suicide in jail, and another was a minor, so he was sent to a juvenile facility instead of being sentenced to death. The remaining four accused were found guilty and sentenced to death. They were executed in 2020. The court gave the death penalty after carefully studying the case. It found that the aggravating factors such as the cruelty, planning, and inhuman treatment of the victim were far more serious than any mitigating factors. The court said that life imprisonment was not enough in this case because of how brutal and heartless the crime was. This judgment became a strong example of how the “rarest of rare” rule is applied in cases of extreme violence and cruelty.
Manoj &others v. state of Madhya Pradesh- the Supreme Court gave important directions on how death penalty cases should be handled in court. The Court said that when a person is facing the death sentence, it is very important to collect full details about the person during the trial itself. These details, called mitigating circumstances, include the accused person’s background, mental health, family life, education, and personal situation. The Court said the Trial Court must ask both the accused and the government (State) to provide this information at the right time. The government must also prepare and show psychological and psychiatric reports of the accused in court, which should be done before the final decision on punishment. This is important to help the court decide whether the death penalty is really needed, or if life imprisonment would be enough. The Supreme Court made it clear that every detail about the accused should be properly studied so that the final punishment is not only legal but also fair and just. This case shows that justice should be given with care and full understanding, especially when the death sentence is involved.
Bachchan Singh v. state of Punjab (1980)- the Supreme Court had to decide when it is right to give someone the death penalty. Bachchan Singh was already serving life imprisonment for a murder, but after being released, he killed more people. Because of this, the trial court gave him the death sentence. The question before the Supreme Court was whether this was fair and whether the death penalty should still be allowed under the Indian Constitution, which gives the right to life in Article 21. The Court said that the death penalty is legal, but it should be used only in the rarest of rare cases. This means that not all murder cases deserve the death sentence. The Court explained that life imprisonment should be the normal punishment, and death should only be given when the crime is extremely horrible and shocks the conscience of society. The Court also said that before deciding the punishment, the judge must think about both the crime and the criminal. This includes things like the age of the person, their background, mental health, whether they can be reformed, and other personal details. These are called mitigating factors, and they can help in reducing the punishment. The Court made it clear that if a judge gives the death penalty, they must give strong and special reasons for doing so. This decision helped make the use of the death penalty more limited in India and made sure it is not used unfairly. This case still guides courts in India today when they decide whether to give the death penalty or life imprisonment.
Research Methodology
This paper uses the doctrinal method of research. It mainly depends on books, laws, court decisions, journal articles, and international reports that are already published. A comparison has been made between how different countries deal with the death penalty. Important judgments from the Indian Supreme Court. The paper also looks closely at different moral and philosophical ideas that support or oppose the death penalty. In addition, the study includes a critical analysis of moral and philosophical ideas about the death penalty. It looks at what different thinkers and legal scholars have said about whether the death penalty is fair, just, and needed in today’s world. Ethical questions like whether the state should have the power to take someone’s life are also discussed in this paper.
Review of Literature
Many researchers and legal experts have shared their views on the death penalty. B.A. Smith (2016) believes that the death penalty is deeply problematic because it cannot be undone once carried out. Reports by Amnesty International highlight that more than 140 countries have either removed the death penalty from their laws or stopped using it in practice. In India, legal scholars such as Upendra Baxi and Rajeev Dhavan have studied how fair capital punishment trials are, especially for people from poor and underprivileged backgrounds. A major legal development came with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachchan Singh v. state of Punjab (1980), where the Court laid down the “rarest of rare” rule. This rule changed how Indian courts decide whether the death penalty should be given in a case.
Method
This research tries to understand why the death penalty is being used less. To do this, it studies laws, court decisions, and government policies. It also looks at what other countries have done. For example, countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and South Africa have stopped giving the death penalty or only use it in very rare cases. This research compares their rules and systems to see how they made these changes and what effects it had on their justice systems. In India, the paper focuses on important judgments by the Supreme Court. The two main cases studied are Bachchan Singh v. state of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. state of Punjab (1983). In these cases, the Court said that the death penalty should only be given in the “rarest of rare” situations. This means only the most serious crimes should get this punishment. These cases are very important for understanding how Indian courts think about the death penalty. The research also looks at real data to understand how often the death penalty is actually used. It uses reports from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and other sources to study how many people get the death sentence, how long executions are delayed, and how many death sentences are later changed to life imprisonment. This helps show if the courts are slowly avoiding the use of the death penalty, even though it is still legal.
Suggestions
- The government should work toward ending the death penalty fully and replace it with life imprisonment. This will avoid the risk of punishing someone wrongly.
- People from poor or weaker backgrounds often cannot afford good lawyers. The government should give better legal help so that everyone gets a fair trial.
- Courts should follow fixed guidelines when deciding punishments. This will stop unfair or random decisions and make justice more equal.
- Anyone facing the death penalty should go through a proper mental health check. Some may be mentally ill and not fully responsible for their actions.
- The public, lawyers, and judges should know more about the serious effects of capital punishment. Legal education programs can help people understand the issue better.
Conclusion
The death penalty has always been a serious and emotional issue in India and around the world. It is the most extreme form of punishment, where a person is sentenced to death for committing a very serious crime. In India, it is only given in the “rarest of rare” cases, but even that phrase has created confusion and debate. While some people believe that the death penalty brings justice and stops others from committing crimes, others believe it is cruel and goes against the right to life and human dignity. Many court judgments in India have shown that the death penalty is given only in special cases, where the crime is extremely violent and shocks the whole society. But even then, we must ask: is it really helping to reduce crime? The answer is not clear. Crime is still increasing, and there is no strong proof that the fear of the death penalty stops criminals. Also, there is always a risk that an innocent person could be wrongly punished, and once the death penalty is given, it cannot be taken back. India is part of the United Nations and supports human rights, yet it still keeps the death penalty in its law. Some countries have removed it completely and focus on reforming criminals instead. India may also need to think about better and more effective ways to deal with crime—ways that protect society but also respect human life. In the end, the purpose of justice should be to create a better and safer society. Punishment should be fair, but it should also give a chance for the person to change. We must focus on ending crimes, not just criminals. The death penalty may seem like a strong solution, but it may not be the right one for a just and humane society.
References
- Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments
- Pillai’s PSA, Criminal Law (Lexis Nexis 13th edition,2017)
- https://www.livelaw.in
- https://www.hindikiduniya.com/essay/essay-on-is-death-penalty-effective-in-hindi
- https://hindi.ipleader.in/significant-analysis-of-death-penalty-in-india/
- http://www.legalservicesindia.com/
- https://indiakanoon.org/
- http://www.legalservicesindia.com/
- K.D.Gaur Textbook on Indian Penal Code 1860