Death Penalty Jurisprudence In India
Death Penalty Jurisprudence in India
1. Legal Framework
The death penalty (capital punishment) is awarded in India under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other special laws for the most serious crimes like murder, terrorism, and certain economic offences.
Section 302 IPC provides for death penalty or life imprisonment for murder.
The Constitution of India (Article 21) guarantees the right to life, but the Supreme Court has held that this right is not absolute and allows for deprivation of life according to the "procedure established by law," including capital punishment.
2. Doctrine of “Rarest of Rare”
The landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 laid down the principle of awarding the death penalty only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
The Court balanced the right to life with the need for justice and deterrence, ruling that capital punishment must be imposed sparingly and only when life imprisonment is not an adequate punishment.
Important Case Laws on Death Penalty Jurisprudence
1. Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts:
Bachan Singh was convicted for murder and sentenced to death. He challenged the death sentence as violative of Article 21 (right to life).
Key Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the death penalty is constitutional but must be reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases.
The Court provided guidelines on how to determine such cases, considering the nature of crime, manner of commission, and circumstances of the accused.
It emphasized that where the alternative of life imprisonment is adequate, the death penalty should not be imposed.
The judgment ensures that the death penalty is not imposed arbitrarily or routinely.
2. Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470
Facts:
Machhi Singh was convicted for multiple murders and sentenced to death.
Key Holding:
The Supreme Court applied the “rarest of rare” principle, stating that when the crime is "extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly," death penalty may be justified.
The judgment listed various aggravating factors such as premeditation, multiple victims, and cruelty.
It reinforced the need to consider both mitigating and aggravating circumstances before awarding death.
3. Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1
Facts:
This case dealt with delays in the execution of death sentences and the issue of whether prolonged delay constitutes grounds for commutation.
Key Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that unexplained or inordinate delay in deciding mercy petitions or carrying out execution violates the convict’s right to life with dignity.
The Court held that if a delay of more than 5 years occurs, the death sentence should ordinarily be commuted to life imprisonment.
This ruling aimed to prevent psychological torture caused by prolonged uncertainty.
4. Mithu vs State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277
Facts:
The case challenged the mandatory death sentence under Section 303 IPC (for murder by a life convict).
Key Holding:
The Supreme Court struck down mandatory death sentences, holding that the death penalty cannot be imposed as a mandatory punishment.
Sentencing must be individualized, allowing courts to consider mitigating factors.
The judgment emphasized the discretion of courts to impose either death or life imprisonment based on circumstances.
5. Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State of Maharashtra (2009) 7 SCC 498
Facts:
Santosh Bariyar was sentenced to death for murder, and the Court examined whether death penalty was justified.
Key Holding:
The Court reiterated the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
It laid down factors to be considered when deciding death penalty: nature of crime, manner of commission, motive, and possibility of reform.
The Court held that aggravating circumstances must outweigh mitigating ones for death sentence to be awarded.
6. Triveniben vs State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678
Facts:
This case dealt with the principle of mercy and the power of the President/Governor to grant pardon or commute sentences.
Key Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the power of pardon or commutation is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously.
The Court emphasized that the power should be exercised with care and is a constitutional safeguard to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Summary of Principles from Death Penalty Jurisprudence
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Rarest of Rare Doctrine | Death penalty only in exceptional, extremely serious cases |
| Discretionary, Not Mandatory | Death sentence must not be imposed mandatorily; courts must consider individual circumstances |
| Delay in Execution | Prolonged delay (usually 5 years or more) in carrying out death sentence may lead to commutation |
| Judicial Guidelines | Courts must consider aggravating & mitigating factors before sentencing |
| Right to Life | Death penalty is an exception to the right to life, allowed under constitutional safeguards |
| Clemency Powers | President/Governor has discretionary power to grant pardon or commute sentence |
RELATED Blog
0 comments