Skip to main content

DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA


                              DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA 


INTRODUCTION

720 prisoners have been executed in India since 1947. In independent India, the assassins of Mahatma Gandhi Nathuram Godse and Narain D Apte were the first to be hanged to death (the two were hanged in Ambala Central jail in Haryana on November, 1949). The latest execution in India was on March 20, 2020 the four convicts of the Nirbaya gang rape case. In 1980, the Supreme Court said that death penalty should only be rewarded only in rarest of rare cases. In India the execution can be given by two ways, hanging by the neck until death and by being shot to death. Death by shooting is executed under the Army Act, Navy Act and Air Force Act. Death penalty is one of the punishment prescribed under section 53 of IPC. Death sentence is given in serious and heinous offences. 

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

1)Jagmohan Singh vs. State of UP (1973) – it is the first case where the constitutionality of death penalty was challenged on the ground of violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution. In this case a five judged bench of the supreme court upheld the constitutional validity of death penalty and also held that capital punishment is not violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution.

2)Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab(1980) – in this case again the constitutionality of death penalty was challenged, but  this time it is under two specific grounds, the first one is that death penalty as a punishment for murder under section 302 of IPC was challenged and the second one is the procedure of sentencing death penalty. In this case the court upheld he decision which is given in Jagmohan Singh case. In this case court made a new doctrine that is doctrine of rarest of rare, the supreme court held that the death penalty only be constitutional when it is applied to exceptional penalty in the rarest of rare cases.

3)Macchi Singh vs. State of Punjab(1983) – this case strengthen the doctrine of rarest of rare and also in this case main three points are given to better understanding ,they are:

(i) To avoid death penalty court have to take care of two consideration, they are the factor of culpability (gravity and circumstances of the offence) and the circumstances of the offenders (socio-economic circumstances and other circumstances of the offender). 

(ii) Life imprisonment is the rule and Death punishment is an exception. Death penalty should only be given in exceptional case.

(iii) Court has to prepare a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Only when aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances only then death penalty can be awarded.

4) Mithu Singh vs. State of Punjab – in this case section 303 of the IPC was declared unconstitutional. S.303 of the IPC was struck down as violative of Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India, as the offence under the section was punishable only with capital punishment and did not give the judiciary the power to exercise its discretion and thus result in an unfair, unjust and unreasonable procedure depriving a person of his life.

CONCLUSION

If one person is awarded death penalty he also have many remedies available, they are if the death penalty is given in lower court then they can approach the High Court(under section 366(1) of crpc), then also the court held the decision of lower court correct then they can give appeal in the supreme court, then also it is rejected then they can give review petition( if there is any new evidence), then also it rejected then they can file curative petition, the last hope will be the mercy petition( according to Article 72 for the  president and Article 161 of the constitution for state governor give the power of mercy petition). In Shabnam vs. Union of India, shabnam is awarded death penalty (she and his boyfriend killed her entire family), the mercy petition was filed to the president but it was rejected.


By,

Asha Sebastian.


 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree