Capital Punishment And Life Imprisonment
⚖️ Capital Punishment and Life Imprisonment – Overview
1. Capital Punishment (Death Penalty)
Definition:
The death penalty is the most severe form of punishment, where the state puts a convicted person to death. In India, it is provided under Section 302 IPC (murder) and other statutes like Terrorism and Narcotics laws.
Constitutional Basis:
Article 21: Right to life is fundamental, but the constitution permits deprivation of life by law.
Supreme Court has consistently held that death penalty should be rare and only for the “rarest of rare cases”.
Key Points:
Death penalty is exceptional, not ordinary.
Courts consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Delay in execution may be considered as a factor.
2. Life Imprisonment
Definition:
Punishment where the convict is sentenced to remain in prison for life.
Indian law presumes life imprisonment to be for the remainder of natural life, although earlier it was sometimes treated as 20 years.
Applicable under IPC Sections 302 (murder), 376D (gang rape), NDPS Act, etc.
Key Points:
Life imprisonment allows reformative and rehabilitative opportunity.
Prisoners can sometimes get remission or commutation depending on behavior and law.
🧾 Case Laws on Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts:
This case challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty under Article 21. Bachan Singh was convicted of murder.
Issue:
Whether the death penalty is constitutional and under what circumstances it should be imposed.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine: Death penalty should be imposed only in cases where the alternative life imprisonment is inadequate.
Courts must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Legal Principle:
Death penalty is exceptional; life imprisonment is the normal sentence for murder.
The case laid down the framework for judicial discretion in sentencing.
2. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470
Facts:
Conviction for multiple murders in a dacoity case.
Issue:
When is the “rarest of rare” doctrine applicable?
Judgment:
Supreme Court emphasized that heinous crimes involving multiple victims can attract the death penalty.
Factors like brutality, number of victims, motive, and manner of crime are considered.
Legal Principle:
Death penalty is justified in rarest of rare cases, particularly mass killings, extreme cruelty, or premeditated acts.
3. Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 8 SCC 498
Facts:
Santosh Bariyar was convicted of murder and challenged the death sentence.
Judgment:
Court reiterated that death penalty should be reserved for cases where the life of the victim is brutally taken and life imprisonment would be inadequate.
Delay in execution can also be considered for commutation.
Legal Principle:
Balances the principle of retribution with humanity.
Courts can commute death sentences to life imprisonment in certain circumstances.
4. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277
Facts:
Challenged mandatory death penalty for drug offenses under the Narcotic Drugs Act.
Issue:
Whether mandatory death penalty violates Article 21.
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down mandatory death sentences, stating sentencing discretion is essential.
Death penalty must be decided after considering individual circumstances.
Legal Principle:
Mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional.
Judicial discretion is crucial.
5. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) 3 SCR 595
Facts:
Nanavati, a naval officer, was convicted of murdering his wife’s lover.
Issue:
Should the death penalty apply in crimes driven by sudden emotion or provocation?
Judgment:
Initially sentenced to death, later commuted by higher courts to life imprisonment due to provocation and circumstances.
Legal Principle:
Death penalty may not be imposed in cases with strong mitigating factors like emotional disturbance or loss of self-control.
6. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1
Facts:
Chauhan was on death row for murder; his execution was delayed for years.
Issue:
Whether prolonged delay in execution violates Article 21.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that unreasonable delay in execution can be a ground to commute death sentence to life imprisonment.
Legal Principle:
Justice delayed can amount to injustice; long delays are considered cruel and inhuman treatment.
7. Bachan Singh Principle Applied in Subsequent Cases
Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2001) 6 SCC 66: Death penalty for mass murder justified.
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994): Extreme brutality in rape-murder case warranted death penalty.
Courts continue to apply rarest of rare doctrine, balancing gravity of crime with possibility of reformation.
🧩 Summary Table
| Case | Offense | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Bachan Singh (1980) | Murder | “Rarest of rare” doctrine; death penalty exceptional |
| Machhi Singh (1983) | Multiple murders | Death penalty for multiple or brutal killings |
| Santosh Bariyar (2009) | Murder | Life imprisonment may be adequate; delay considered |
| Mithu v. Punjab (1983) | Drug offense | Mandatory death penalty unconstitutional |
| Nanavati (1962) | Murder (provocation) | Mitigating circumstances can reduce sentence |
| Shatrughan Chauhan (2014) | Murder | Long delay in execution can commute death penalty |
| Dhananjoy Chatterjee (1994) | Rape-murder | Extreme brutality justifies death penalty |
🧠 Conclusion
Death penalty is rare, only for the “rarest of rare” cases.
Life imprisonment is the default punishment for murder unless aggravating factors exist.
Courts weigh aggravating and mitigating factors, including:
Number of victims
Brutality of crime
Circumstances of the offender (provocation, remorse)
Delay in execution
Mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional; judicial discretion is mandatory.
India balances retributive justice with humanity and possibility of reform.
RELATED Blog
0 comments