Capital Punishment In India

 Capital Punishment In India

Capital punishment is a lawful death penalty that can be imposed by a court against a person who has committed the most terrible and horrific crimes possible. Hanging is the method of execution used in criminal prosecutions. Despite the fact that it is only provided in the most extreme of circumstances in India. Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure both provide for the imposition of the death penalty in certain circumstances. Capital punishment has existed in India since its inception, albeit its application has become increasingly limited over time. As an indication of how limited the situation is, no female offender has been sentenced to death in India since independence in 1947.

These are only a few of the offences for which the death penalty is applied in the country of India.

There is also a procedure for the execution of the death penalty, which includes the following steps: After the conclusion of the proceedings in the trial court, the judge pronounces the judgement under Section 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the court must record the special reason for the judgement.

Following that, the matter will be sent to the high court for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the judgement. The high court can uphold the judgement, or it can issue a fresh judgement in the case, or it can order a new trial in the matter.

When the proof for the penalty is presented to the high court, a special leave petition may be filed as well.

A petition for review of a judgement or order passed by the Supreme Court may be brought before the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 137 of the Constitution within thirty days of the date of a similar judgement or order.

Following the dismissal of a special leave petition, the Supreme Court may enable a curative petition to be filed in order to examine its decision.

Lastly, Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution confer authority on the President of India and the Governor of the state, respectively, to grant pardons and to suspend, remit, or commute judgements in specific circumstances. The President or the governor may take the convict's case into consideration and may decide to commute the death sentence.

Here are a few examples of instances involving the death penalty:

Bachan Singh vs. the Government of Punjab

This case may be considered a corner judgement by a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of the United States. By establishing the rarest of the rare concept in this case, the Supreme Court highlighted certain significant constraints on the prosecution's ability to proceed. According to the Supreme Court, a genuine and persistent concern for the quality of mortal life presupposes opposition to the taking of a life through the legal system. That should only be done in the rarest or most rare cases where the choice opinion is obviously foreclosed, and even then only in extreme cases.

Mukesh and others vs. the National Capital Territory of Delhi

After rejecting the prisoners' appeal and stating that they had perpetrated a brutal crime that had damaged society's confidence, the Supreme Court maintained the death sentence for the four individuals who had been prosecuted in connection with the murder on May 5, 2017. The family of the victim, as well as members of civic society, were pleased with the outcome of the trial.

In the case of Shabnam v. State of Uttar Pradesh,

In this case, history will be made, as Shabnam will be the first woman to be sentenced to death in the country's history, following independence from Britain.

Shabnam and Saleem, both in their twenties at the time of the killings, were found guilty of the murders of seven members of Shabnam's family. She would have been the single heir to the family estate if all of them had died and she had been left alone. They were taken into custody five days later. Shabnam was 7 weeks pregnant at the time of the incident. She gave birth to her son, Mohammad Taj, in December of that same year. He is currently sharing a residence with Usman Saifi, a member of Shabnam's council, and his female companion.

In 2010, the Amroha Sessions Court sentenced them to death, a decision that was affirmed by the Allahabad High Court the following year.

It was observed in 2015 by the Supreme Court that the ultimate goal of the Court is to serve society, and that the convict's nice deed or kind heart should not be used as a justification for swapping his or her sentence. It is not acceptable to ignore the crime. Consequently, the Court maintained the death sentence on the grounds that it was a premeditated crime with meticulous planning on the part of the defendant.