Penology, Victimology

Correctional Administration
inIndia
Dr. Krishna Pal Malik

PUIAKHETRAPAL LAW HOUSE

LAW BOOKSELLERS&PUBLISHERS
1Shop, 27,
AllaINDORE-452007, 0731-4072316, AgenCV.
Road,
Ph.: Building
2540987
 CHAPTER 5
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
real
and abiding
ud abiding
concern for the
A
ulates
resistance to taking dignity of human
life
That ought not to be life through luw's
when the alternative done save in the rarest of
'rumentality

when
Cases
re
foreclosedl. " option is unquestionably

Hon'ble Supreme Court

I n t r o d u c t i o n

(1) ishment of death sentence is known as

The p death by an authority as a
of death capital punishment.
nfliction
hment. Capita
punishment
ital punishment is the practice of
is called capital
The

of an nder as a measure of social policy.

offender
deliberately putting to the
pun
It is imposed by the
authority ofththe country. Capital
punishment is generally imposed
d e a t h

overning
most, grievous disable
ble crimes
against human society or human
for t h e f o r
maximum quantum of punishment which can be given by law
is the
beings.Itis It
i.e., his Ilife is put to an end by this
criminal, punishment. In early age,
to a punishment was made only for unlawful homicides and
of this pu
p r o v i s i o

the eligious crimes. The capital punishment is the highest

exual and reli
o t h e r

the penology known to man, which deprives one's life and

punishme.

of the Constitution of India; Universal Declaration of

e x i s t e n c e .

Article 21
Civil and Political
Riohts, 1948; and International Covenant on
can be
Human
importance of the life According to them, no one
Rights, 1966 provide to the procedure
deprive fe
of life and personal liberty, except according
established by law.
the Supreme Court
that in the matter of death
held by
Tt has been answer new challenges
and mould the
urts are required to
atence, the Cour
The object should be to protect
meet these challenges.
the avowed object to law by
system to
ntencing criminal in achieving
the
and to deter that the Courts would operate
the society sentence. It is expected
which reflects the
imposing appropriate so as to impose
such sentence
where it
sentencing system process has to be stern
the and the sentencing background of
the society indicated in the
conscience of were
where
though the principles
Even to all c a s e s
should be. the logic applies
sentence and
life sentence,
death of
s e n t e n c e is
the issue." offence: A killing
sentence" is not
an
appropriate extended
or
execution of "death homicide,
which is
Infliction
another
human being is called
human being by

AIR 1980
SC 898.
B a c h c h a n Singh
v. State of Punjab, Gujarat,
(1994) 4 SCC
353.

Bharatsinh
Gohil v. Stateof
'Jashubha

(69)
 CORRECTIONAL
ADMINISTRATION IN INNA
DIA
VICTIMOLOGY AND
70 PENOLOGY,

it is legal ho
to murder. But
under all the civilized penal systems,

sentenee is
general
defence under IPC. Secti
of death so
nicide. and"T
11
s o m e o n e death
give for execution
exeeptions
which i is cdone
e
8 of IPC state goneral
to seetion 77, nothing
is an

which
offence
is.
by irom
homicide. According of any power or .

judge when acting judicially in

the exercisc
to be, given
to him by
law. Section 78 which in
ates
Jood faith he believes
o, or
which is warrantod
ed by thathe
done whilst such id.
is done in pursuance
nothing which
judgment or
order of, a

is
Court of Justice, if
an offence,
notwithstanding
the fact thate
o
dgment o
order remains in force, judgment or order pro

may have
had no jurisdiction to pass
such
faith believes
that the court had ded the
during the act in good such
person
jurisdiction.
Political R:
(2) International

1966
Covenant on Civil and
Righta
Covenant Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
on
The International India also is a a c
from 23rd March, 1976,
implemented with effect death sentencoi
abolish the imposition of
this Covenant. It does not
6 of the Covenant
-

circumstances. According to Article

Death sentence may be imposed only for the most serious c i .

"(a) in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commin
Bsion
of the crime.
b) In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentena
(b) of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes
accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission nf
the crime and not contrary to the proviSions of the present
Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be
carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a
competent court.

(c) When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is

understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State
Party to the present Covenant to derogate in anyway from any
obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
(d) Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or
commutation of the sentence. Amnesty,
the
pardon or commutation of
sentence of death may
be granted in all cases.
(e) Sentence of death shall not be
imposed for crimes by
persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried outcommitted
on pregnant women.

Nothing in this article shall be invoked to

abolition of capital delay or to prevent tne
Covenant." punishment by any State Party to the presen
Thus, the
requirement of the International Covenant is the
prohibitions contained in Articles 20 and 21same
the
guarantees or
ot o
 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
71

mstitut1On. la
7h PC prescribes donth sentenee us an alternative
nly for heinous
ous erimes. Indian Penal LaWs are thus
Covenant.
entirely in
munushn
h I n t e r n a t i o n a l
u r o r dw l h l n t o r

Punishment in India:
aital
C'apital

f special laws, the IPC has 10 offences under various

Irrespecti
empowering th competent court to impOse death sentence on
sctons 983, the Supreme Court has declared section
offence. In 198
the
mrictio
308 a s unconstit.
tutional by stating that it gives mandatory death sentence
rovide alternative punishment. In 1993, section 364A is
p r o v i d e

A mendm
Act, 1993, which provides death
not

Amendment
does
he Criminal
C riminal
and
inserted by theo f t e n c e ofkidnapping
? for ransom'. It is conserved by author
serted the
sentence for ritten that section 303 of IPC is remitted by
writ
a u t h o r s have
the
me of
thatsome
I isagreeing with such statement, we must
am
Court.
from the
Supreme
is not empowered to remit any coma
the that judiciary has not yet
n e m b e r

it is the
function of legislature and legislature
is still part of IPC and will remain
reme

book,
S t a t u t e

303 of IPC. Section 303

section
amendment and this power is only
o m i t t e d by bringing
remitted
till not
of IPC The function of judiciary is only
not with the judiciary.
Parliament, substitute any word from the
the not to add or remit or
to interpret the. another
constitutional lidity of it can be challenged again by once held
The
s t a t u t e .
sections of the statutes, which were
are many constitutional.
There
challenge, held
c a s e

and by another

decision and this

nconstitutional can overrule its own
Court
Hon'ble Supreme of the examples is
The
used several imes
time by the Apex Court, one
unconstitutional by
has been once in 1994 was held
ower which was
by five judges
P o n

309
section 309 of IPC, overruled
after 2 years in 1996,
was
and die
three judges
Bench by constitutional stating that right to
and held again Constitution.'
unanimously Article 21 of the
Bench to life under
include in the right Criminal Procedure,
does not 354 (3) of the Code of the
is section overruled
Another example held
and just after one year
unconstitutional

was once
1973 which Court.
of the Supreme the
by another Bench directed to all the courts to follow
Court has and
Hon'ble Supreme death sentence is exception"
the rule and
"imprisonment is cases only. But,
it is the
that the rare"
principle in the "rarest of
death s e n t e n c e cases of r a r e
and which a r e
gives the be held in the
which c a s e c a n that such
most confusing rule, which c a n state
rare". There is n o clear guideline a r e having
their own
rarest of the because all
cases
Court
rarest of the rare,
the Hon'ble Supreme
cases a r e other. Still, static and
different from the but it is not
Circumstances, and the r a r e cases",
test of "rarest of theory also
has tried to set the circumstances
changed, the
and
time. As time
exClusive at any
changed.

3 SCC 394.
PRathinam
y, Union ofIndia, (1994)
 ADMINISTRATION IN IN
INDIA
CORRECTIONAL

vICTMOLOGY
AND
PENOLOGY.
72 death sentence' iin Inei
with
'death
sentence'

India
c a s e s " onlu

(4)
(4)
Omences

Death
punishable

sentence
is
nwarded

400
offences
are
rare

for " r a r e s t of
specified, only ten
the offeneo
ces
ccording
offences
the IPC,
punishable
where

with
nbout

denth
sentence,

be
The
awarded:
following
are

where h
mny of India under
capital
punishment
Waging
war against the
Government

ection 12
(i)
of IPC: committed
under section 139.
actually
Abetting mutiny evidence upon ich
which aan
(11 Giving or
fabricating
false
under section
194 of IPC; innoc
suffers death
person section 302 of IPC;
Punishment for murder under
(iv)
iv)
the life convict
under section 303 of
(v) Murder by
Unconstitutional
Mithu's c a s e (1983)];
by IPO
minor or an insane or an into
(vi Abetment of suicide of a
under section 305 of IPC;
person
under sentence of impric.
Attempt to murder by a person
(vii
for life, if hurt is caused under section
307 of IPC; nment
(vil) Kidnapping for ransom, ete. under section 364A of IPC: Iin.
by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1993 (Act 42
42 of
of 199
1993)
serte
came into force w.e.f. 22-05-1993] and
(ix) Dacoity accompanied with murder under section 396 of IPO.
and
(x)
Abettor or conspirator of any of the offences punishable with
death and actually
committed in
section 109 and section 120B
consequence of abetted undder
(1) of IPC.
Besides, death sentence may be awarded under the
special
India. The following offences under Special Laws are punishable withlaws i
sentence. I tried to make the entire list the offences death
of
under Special Laws, but it is not exclusive. punishable with death
(xi) Offence under Armed
Forces Acts The Court
empowered to award maximum Martial is
on the punishment
person who is subject to these
of death
sentence,
under the list Acts and offence falls
prescribed these Acts under section 34
Mutiny under section 37. by Death sentence and
the Court Martial may be awardedby
also
death sentence under for the offence which is
Army and Navy punishable
Air Force, with
xii) Certain offences after
death sentence previous Acts.
under NDPS conviction are punishable wi
(xii) Using unauthorised arms Act.
other person is or
ammunition, results
punishable with esults in the death of
the dea
5
death sentence.
The abettor or
section 109 andconspirator of murder,
Section 73 of the section 120B read withKehar Singh was awarded
av with death sentenceunder
Section 31A of Air Force Act, 1950; thesection 302 of IPC.
Section 27 (3) ofNDPS Act, 1985. Army Act, 1950; and
the Arms Act, the Navy ACt, 1957.
1959,
 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 73

oof.
Ooffence f abetnent of Sati is punishable with denth sentence.
ofreagainst the
Offences against th Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes
Dcheduled Tribes
with death sentence."
(NV
are
punishable
ffences under the Terrorist Act enforcenble by law in the
under

country a r e puni. unishable with death sentence."

itutional validity of death sentence:

Const
validity of imposition of death sentence was
n s t i t u t i o n a l

T h e
cany times. issih1Pre
many timnes. The Supreme Court held that the deprivation of
The
lengeda tl Dermissible if that is done according to the procedure
f eisconstitui
tituw aw aand
n d that it cannot be held that capital punishment is per
law
by
hed Dand
Stablished
u n r e a s o n a b l e a n a
not in the public interest. It was also held that the
v e s t e
with very wide discretion in the matter of fixing the
degreeot ishment and that discretion in the matter of sentence is liable to
punishment
ar e
in

well
hw Superior courts, that exercise of judicial discretion on for
jiualges

corrected by
is, in
les is, the final analysis, the safest possible safeguard
in thei
Tecogmised,principles
be
t i h ea c c u s e d?

sentence is con constitutional : First time in 1973, the constitutional

was challenged in the case of Jagmohan
Deuaanital punishment
the petitioner challenged the validity of death
sentence
idit " In.his case,
19 and 21, because it did not
was violative of Articles
Hingh.
snd that it the
any procedure. IIt
on the gro contended that the procedure preseribed by
was

confining of guilt and not awarding death

minal Procedure
was
provu Court held that the
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Code

The
sentence. The five
judges' accordance with procedure
sentence is done in
ding death
the choice between capital punishment
choice of awardi

"he judge makes

law. facts and nature of
shed by the basis of circumstances;
of life
l1 on
is not violative
trial. So, capital punishment
i m p r i s o n m e n t

and on record
during valid.
crime bring Constitution,
hence it is constitutionally
the
19 and 2l of sentence was not
death sentene
the death
f Articles 14, onal validity of
constitutional

the
decision
After this death
open to doubt. unconstitutional: Again,
held
death sentence was Justice VR
In 1979, Prasad", where
in the case of Bajendra unless it
sentence was
challenged would not be justified
held that capital
punishment He held that
Krishna lyer to the society.
dangerous and
criminal was sentence
shown that the between death
was make a choice would
to the judge
to of the Code
354 (3)
giving diseretion reasons
under section which
condemns
imprisonment on special of India, it
and retention of
Constitution
ife Article 14 of
the
be violative of abolition of death penalty
arbitrariness.
for the
He pleaded

1987. of Atrocities)
of Sati Act,
(Prevention
Tribes
Section 4 (1) of Commission Scheduled
and the
Scheduled Castes
(2) i) of the
o n3
Act, 1989. POTA, etc. Singh v. State of
TADA 1987,
Bachchan

Ufences under Terrorist

Act 2 SCR 541;
also see

12
v. State of
U.P., (1973)
h a n Singh 267: 1980 SCC (1) 754.
Funjab, 1980 AIR
1973 SC 947.
dagmohan State of U.P., AIR 916.
1979 SC
v.
4 Stata
af I P , AIR
 IN
CORRECTIONAL
ADMINISTRATION

INDIA
vICTIMOLOGY
AND
PENOLOGY,
74 But Justice
"White
Collar
riminals".

whether the deat

Sen in
punishing question Sen
only for held that, the
302 of IPC and Sect: on
enten
decide 354 3
judgement Section
of
concurrent

the scope question to be deo.

abolished or
should be

the Code
should be
curtailed

court.
or not is a
by
the
by constitutional
lidity :
ol:
and not the
restored
Parliament Court
the Supreme decision Rajendra Prasa
of Ra
d's caase n\
U
1980, o v e r r u l e d the
Court that the provisian
Supreme holding
with d
murthederden
Hon'ble

of
Bachchan Singh" alternative
punishment fo
the violative of Article 302
case as an
not
under section
IPC 21 of the Constitution r e c o ginn iaccorda
21. Article of se.r
sentence

his life or personal liberty in

a person of e s t a b l i s h e d by law. In
of the State
to deprive
and
r e a s o n a b l e procedure
can be said
it can said
view
th
dt,
with fair, just of imagination that
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provision
by no stretch
because of its degi
penalty under
section 302of IPC either per se or

unreasonable,
cruel or unusual usual punishm0
punishme wtion
and
does not violate the basic
constitutes
hanging
death penalty for
the offence of murder feature
the Constitution. concluded that section

In Bachchan Singh's case the majority

that the death sentence r
302
main reasons: Eirstly,
IPC is valid for three ife imprison
sentence of life imprisonme
alternative to the
for by section 302 is an
section 354 (
r e a s o n s have
to be stated under
that special
secondly, from and the death sentence hao
Code if the normal rule is departed
because the accused is
entitled under section 235
imposed; and, thirdly, of sentence.
the Code to be heard on the question

The ratio of Buchchan Singh,

theretore, that, nce s
sentence 1s death

alternative sentence for the offenee

constitutional if it is prescribed as an
law for murder
murder and if the normal sentence prescribed by
and validity of death sentence we
imprisonment for life. These principles
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the series of cases, again a
again the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional validity
16
death sentence in a series of cases.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher Singh while asserti
in the following view with regard to constitutional validity of death sentens
has held that death sentence is constitutionally valid and permissible with
the constraints of the rule in Bachchan Singh case. This has to be accepted=
the law ofland."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allauddin Mian, 4
affirmed that death sentence is the
constitutionally valid and held that
face of the Statutory provision in Section 354 (3) of the Ving
of special reasons while imposing death sentence which is
Code requirng
stituent wi

15
Bachchan Singh v. State of
16 Punjab, AlR 1980
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SCSC 898.
597, Sher Singh v. State o fPunjab,.AIR1A
SC 465, Triveniben y, State af Gui fian
 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 75

Constitution which enjoins that the personal liberty or life of

tha
he Constitutio

h oa
f l l not be taken except nccording to the procedure
n indivdual
2 7

law, extreme plea of death in no coso cannot. be countenanced

Artich

established leath penalty

a n dt h e d e a t h
cannot be said to be violative of Article 21 of the

Constitution.
it hallenging the constitutional validity of death sentence could not
B u t , c h a l l e

challenged in 1991 in the case of Jumman Khan,

and again was

bestoppedSupreme Cour
ourt has held that we are in full agreement with the
a 2 a i nt h e

o n o l o g i c a l l y
expressed in Bachchan Singh, Sher Singh, and
noin holding that the death sentence is constitutionally valid.
in hol
17ew case

in s
Allauddin w t h e c o u r t was of the firm opinion that the decision of the

I n t h a t
Singh's case does not require consideration."
Bachchan Singh'

majo
n 1992 in the case of Shashi Nayar, the constitutional validity
tencewas challenged before the Supreme Court employing
same arguments as in Jagmohan and Bachchan Singh cases
ofthe
almost a l l
invoking Article 21 and asserting that capital punishment
Beside
e a r l
a n v Social purpose, it was argued that the Law Commission's
d o e s n o t s e r v e

tof 1967, which the majority opinion cited in support of the capital
35thn t
punishment
Bachchan Singh ought not to continue to guide the court
in
water had run through the bridge since then and that there
because nmuch

nirical before the court that the situation prevailing in 1967

study
was no empiri

all the contention."

was still prevailin; ing. The court rejected
be concluded that
Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the
Tan
It can
the
validity of the death sentence in a series of cases." On
held the procedure unconstitutional and violating
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

her hand, only once has

in the c a s e of jendra Prasad",
other which was overruled within one
14
Article

it is well settled
that capital punishment is constitutionally valid
ar. Now, on this issue.
need to spoil the ink and to vest the time
yea
is no
nd there
IPC is unconstitutional:
(6) Section 303 of the
Court in 1983, in Mithu v. State of Punjab" has
The Hon'ble Supreme is void
sentence given under section 303 which is mandatory
held that death violative of both Articles 14 and 21 of the
and unconstitutional being
life convict to be dangerous class without any
Constitution. It regards
Article 14 and similarly by completely
suficient basis and thus violating fair and
discretion it becomes a law which is not just,
eutting out judicial
Article 21. So now all murders are
reasonable within the meaning of
violates the guarantee of equality
punishable under section 302 of IPC. It
also the conferred by Article 21 that no
right
contained in Article 14 as
to
shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according

Allaudin Mian v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 1456.

9 Jumman Khan v. State of U.P., AR 1991 SC 345.

Shashi Nayar v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 395.

Bachchan Singh v, State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898.
 CORRECTIONAL

AND
VTIMOLOG Y

justificatin.
PEMNOGY
n for
rstablished b y
luw
thero
in
puninhiment
no
rntionnl

between
perso

i n p r i s o n .
who co
whe

and
wwing
oflife
pernen
that
wure held Ontenee under the sentence
en
e o u r t
matter

1he the not m a d a

the be

ingnatut
ler
u n d e r
are
in
in can

distincton arv thoy

distinction
w h i l s t
they w h i l s t

m u r d e r
after se
aftor
m u i r d e r s
rationnl
commits
nits murder
while he
m u r d e r s

c o m m i
no
oommit
her, who who
Furt
ho
imprienment n
p e r s o n

a
p e r s o n

b e t w r e n
and
impprisonment
ence oi dey
s e n t .

m a n d a t o r y
sentencinx
a
of hfe Dri.
sntene
sentence.

for
p r e s c r i b i n g

outside the
the prison by a
that
inside
or
st
Condu
under j u s t i f i c a t i o n
Research
still c o m n m i t t e d

no imprisonment.
is
There

offence
of
murder

of life of
murders
itted by
com

as to justify a
s e n t e n c e frequency
the as

found guilty ofhar

for
under
the
that
the so
high
not
who is i n d i c a t e d
is fo
abroad
have

while
they
are
on

to
parole

them
when
they
compared
are

with othe
with havi
other persong
convicts
a c c o r d e d
as
parole,
t r e a t m e n t
being while
on
A
of justice
murder

c o m m i t t e d
a hallmarks

murde. the beneficen

of and
discretig
are
guilty c o n s c i e n c e
wise
are of its
and good
circumstancesT

the u s e ircumstances
Equity c o u r t of to the
gravity whi
the regard
law
which
deprives
of life
and
death,
without
without
regard to the
of of t
and unfair. The The legislata,
thereföre,
in a
matter
and,
courts ofa
committed
unjust
theoffence
was
regarded
as
harsh,
deprivee the cour
offence,
cannot
but be irrelevant,

not to impose
impose the
the
deasth
c i r c u m s t a n c e s

relevant d i s c r e t i o n not
their
eyes to mis
make exercise

igating
cannot
to to s h u t their
jurisdiction them
and unconscionable d
legitimate
cases, compel unconscionable
sentence in appropriate them the
dubious
uty d
circumstances
and inflict upon
death. It i s
because the death sent
sentence of
pre-ordained IPC in regard to a Dartim
imposing a
section 303 of
made mandatory by deprived are of .
has been consequence, they
necessary
class of persons that,
as a
Code to show cause why they sh
section 235 (2) the of
opportunity under relieved from its obligation unde
sentenced to death and the Court is
not be for imposing th
the Code to state the special reasons
section 354 (3) of
of death. The deprivation of these rights and safeguards which i
sentence
and unjust.
bound to result in injustice is harsh, arbitrary
light shed by Maneka Gandhi ani
The Supreme Court judged in the
Bachchan Singh cases and held that it is impossible to uphold section 303 a
valid. Section 303 excludes judicial discretion. The scales of justice art
removed from the hands of the Judge so soon as he pronounces the accus
guilty of the offence. So final, so irrevocable and so irresistible is the sente
of death that no law which
provides for it without the involvement Qust
Judicial mind can be said to be fair, just and reasonable. Such a law
.
necessarily be stigmatized as Section 303 is
arbitrary and suo
law
and it must go
the way of all bad laws.oppressive. fofPC
IPG
must be struck down Therefore, Section ls
as
unconstitutional. section
All offence of sectlo 303 fals
under the section 302 of
IPC.
 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 71

theory:
ures
4ofthe rare cases"
remeCourt has formulnted rule of the 'rarest of the rore casos8
1 h eS u p r
Singh. which was reiterated in Machhi Singh, the
of Bae to be kept in view when considering the question
B a c

of
u s "s hich ard

thee
belongs to the rarest of the rare category for awarding
b e l o n

n
°

d r a t he l e n c o
cUse

ere
w e r
indicated by Hon'ble Supreme Court." The following
t h e r
asked and answered as a test to determine the "rarest of
u/'s1ionsm a y b e

which death sentence can be inflicted:

"r"cuse here somethirning uncommon about the crime which renders
t h 'r a r
Is imprisonmen for life inadequate and calls for a
sentence of
d e a t h s e n t e n c e ?

circumstance of the crime such that there is no

#he
a t i v e but to impose death sentence even after according
(b a l t e r n

circumstances which
vimum, weightageoffender?mitigating
to the
of the
ma

tavour

speak in which emerge from Bachchan Singh case will

idelines
following guidel
of
facts of each individual case where the question
ed to the
The

s e n t e n c e arises
:
sent
have.

ofddeath
of
eath
death need not be inflicted except in
imposition

extreme penalty of
The
extreme culpability.
gravest
cases
of the circumstances of the
for the death penalty,
Before opting to be taken into consideration along with
() offender also require
circumstances
of the crimne.
the sentence is an erception.
the rule and death
L i f e imprisonment is sentence must be imposed only when life
words, death
In other to be an altogether inadequate
appears
imprisonment circumstances of the
regard to the relevant
punishment having the option to impose
and only provided,
crime, and
provided, conscientiously
life cannot be
imprisonment for
sentence of circumstances of the
to the nature and
exercised having
regard
circumstances.
relevant
crime and
all the circumstances

sheet of aggravating and mitigating

balance the mitigating
(iv A to be drawn up and in doing so, and just
has
be récorded full weightage
circumstances
have to and the
struck between the aggravating
balance has to
be exercised.
circumstances
before the option is
mitigating considered by
Constitutional Bench
was
decision of the observed that in
The above said in the case of Machhi Singh" and shocked
a three-Judge
Bench
conscience of the
community is so
when collective death
rarest of rare cases centre to inflict
power
holders of the judicial desirability or
will expect the regards
that
it of their personal
opinion as
penalty irrespective

Machhi Singh
v. State Punjab, of
(1980) 3 SCC 684 and SC 394; Shivuv.
v. State Punjab, of
Jharkhand, AlR
2004
chchan Singh Murmu v. State of
also see Sushil CriLJ 1806
470; SCC 1808: 2007
n 2007 AIR SCW
G. High Court of Karnataka, (1983) 3 SCC 470.
Machhi Singh State of Punjab,
v.

F-8
 CORRECTIONAL
ADMINMINISTRATI ON IN INDIA
AND
PENOLOGY. OL 0GY
VIKTIMOI

8
pennlty,
denth
sentence
be ownrdea
in the ollowing cir
denth
den followi

When cumatn
s e n t i m e n t
r e t a i n n g

other
e r w i s e
of e n t e r t a n
stCh
murder:
th he
of
murder
may
c o m m u n i t y

Manner of
comnmisston
extremely
rutal, grotesque,
e,
in nn ns t0
committed n a n n e r
NO
aC interse
or
dnstnrdly
For instance
community.
revoltinK

extreme
indignation ofthe
victim i8
s e t a l l a n e with when t
house of the
the
to ronst
him alive
in the h o u s e .
nhuman
in
victim is subjected
to inh cts of tortur.
(i) the about is
his or her death
order to bring
cruelty in cut into pieces
of the
victim 1s eces or
his
body
(iii) the
dismembered in a
fiendish

murder
manner.

: When +h.
body
for
commission of .
(b) Motive
committed
meanness.
for
instance,
Forassassin
a hired
a
motive
when:
which

commits murder for the sake of mon

evinces total
epravityder
(i)
reward,
(ii) a cold-blooded murder is committed with a delih
inherit property or to gain coe
design in order to o
ward or a person under the co
property
murderer
of a

or vis-a-viS whom murderer

the control oi the
dominating position or
in a position of trust, or
committed in the course for betraval
(iii) a murder is
motherland.
ayal of he
(c) Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime
When murder of a member of a Scheduled c.
i)
minority community, etc. is committed not for Dero aste
reasons but in circumstances which arouse social-
For instance, when such a crime is committed in order
terrorize such persons and frighten them into fleeinof.
a place or in order to deprive them of, or
make then
rrender, lands or benefits conterred on them with a
view to reverse past injustices and in order to restore the
social balance.
(ii) In of bride burning' and what are known as
cases
deaths' or when murder is committed in order to 'doun
for the sake of extracting remary
dowry once or to again marr
another woman onaccount of infatuation.
(d) Magnitude of crime : When the crime is enormous in
For instance, when proportion
multiple murders say of all or almost allte
members of a family or a
caste, community, or
large number of persons of a particula
(e) locality, are committed.
Personality of victim of murder : When the victim of murder is
) a n innocent child
who could not have or has not vided
even an prov
excuse, much less a provocation, for murder,
 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
79

(ii
a helples8 Woman or a person rendered helplesa by old age
or infirmity;
a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in position of
(ii)
domination or trust;

a publie figure generally loved and respected by the

(iv)
ommunity for the services rendered by him and the
murder is committed for political or similar reasons other
than personal reasons.

itigating circumstances: In the exercise of its discretion, the

court shall ake into account the lowing circumstances
That the offence was committed under the influence of
) extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he
(ii)
shall not be sentenced to death.
ii) The probability that the accused would not commit
criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing
threat to society.
be reformed and
(iv)
iv) The probability that the accused can
rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the
conditions.
accused does not satisty the
circumstances of the case the
That in the facts and
(v) in committing
accused believed that he morally justified
the offence.
or domination of
acted under the duress
That the accused
(vi another person.
showed that he was
condition of the accused
That the his
(vii) and that the said defect impaired
mentally defective conduct. We
the criminality of his
capacity to appreciate these are undoubtedly
than to say that
will do no more must be given great weight
in
circumstances and
relevant
determination of sentence.
the circumstances in the
view of all the
an overall global a n s w e r s to the
account the
If upon taking and taking into the
aforesaid proposition of rare cases,
ight of the test for the rarest
way of
the
sentence is
warranted, the
questions posed by death
such that
are
circumstances of the case
would proceed to
do so. is beyond
redemption,
court and that n o n e
man
in every categories
There is a divinity
is the last step in narrow
still on our Code, to be cured and
but death penalty murderer is not likely
reasonable spell
the on release, if
immediately
where, within a within the prison or of social
others,
even
by the prudence
ends to murder must be tempered deprivation
or
the patience of society for the
et
alive, limited justification human being
The
and that is the of the whole
Curity extinguishment
rights by
ental in extreme situatons
invoked only theconsidering
Ureme penalty can be sentence without
award capital
s llegal to
 TRATIN
(ORRECTIONAI
ADHINIS INDIA
AND

OGY
PEMNOG
RTIMON
evon
judicini
cinl anger 6olven
AnKer

insfe
priSOn.

leud,
an
n l t e r c n t i o n .

younK nnd malles

una
en paneR
p o s s i b i h t e s tnmily
A cruelly,
of
tOTYttal

but
e r e a t e s
many.
extraordinary

relormnt01S
And
absence

fany coneli
P r o b l e m s
with murderer
or
ven on
chrorie
attended

of h a b i t u a l

although prospects n s s a i l n n t
is a on the offender
on
bearing
T e a s o n a b l e
the crcumstances
that
Cinumstances
of
only for the cases
catena
#.
these India
in
ng .death sente
1 o l e n c e

retained
l e s s e r s e n t e n c e .
been of
awarding
has power
s e n t e n c e

the
The
deatlh
the
rare".
Since
expected
to exercise
due care
of
"rarest of courts
are before takin
king any an
nature the
in fina
precautions

wested in
the court, necessary of the co urt
th. India
other tendency
and
take that the
been
seen rather a
it has
criminals

ar
attention

to the
decision. In general imprisonment"
that "life imne ng
award "ife the theory
is to have adopted
present sentence". We
"death exception".
hem is the by tho
e
Suprem,
sentence enunciated
and death principles
he rule
concluded
that the 's
Singh's in s.Pre
case and in subs case

It can be and Machhi soue

Court
Bachhan Singh's
alteredinthe same those sentence.and
as lifeprinciples
either
c o n f i r m e d the death
case

Looking upon the journey from legalD positin

e
death sente
decisions applied
settle
Bachchan
c a n be
said that it is
it t o
(1980) to
Mulla (2010),
crime. It is
the duty of the court to i
Singh
proper punishment depending
must fit upon the decree of criminality and dapse
the as a
that the
punishment

m e a s u r e of
sity and also
social necessitv
esirability
As a
to impose
such punishment. the sentence shosl sentence should be
other potential offenders,
means
deterring
of 6

appropriate befitting
the crime.
sentence
Transformation in awarding death
8)
(8)
of Section 367 (5) of the Code of Crimin ninal
Before the Amendment
Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act. 1gs
Procedure, 1898 by the
the normal sentence for an offence of murda
(Act 26 of 1955) was introduced,
was death and the
lesser sentence was the exception. After the introduction
of the amendment it was not obligatory for the court to state the reasons as t
why the sentence of death was not passed. By the amendment the disCretion
of the court in deciding whether to impose a sentence of death 0
imprisonment for life became wider. The court was bound to exercise its
judicial discretion in awarding one or the other of the sentences. By the
introduction of Section 354 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
normal sentence is the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life and if the
sentence of death is to be awarded, special reasons will have to be recorded.
In
other
words, the court, before imposing a sentence of death,
shoula e
satisfied that the offence is of
such a nature that the extreme penaty
called for.

26 Machchi Sinah
 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
81
Section 354 (3)
aA (3), of the Criminal Procedure
Code which
1974, rOvides that
provides that the judgment shall
state the
came into force
on
dpril1,.

off death is awarded for an offenec

special reasons
punishable with death or
sentence

aA sen with imprisonment for life

imprisonment for term of
wher
i n the alternat or
T h e

nirement
r e q u i r e m e n t that courts should
state
the special reasons for
a

rding
Jear s the onth sentence
death would indicate that
the normal sentence for an
oflence punishable ner with death with imprisonment for life is
or
ife and that if the court considered that sentence of death
on the particular facts of the case, it should
the
a p p r o p r i a t e
give special
s
reasons.
cial reasons for
S p e c i
awarding death sentence is
mandatory: In a
decisions, the Supreme Court has
number of reiterated the position that
dion 354
354 (3) ooff .the Code, by stating that the court is required to
section
under sons for
for the sentence awarded and in the case of sentence of
r e a s o n s

the
state are required to be stated.3
death special ial reasons
ocial reasons must relate to the criminal and not the crime: The

Supreme Cour
Court has held that 'special reasons' necessary for imposing the
nalty must relate not to the crime as such but to the criminal. The
death
death
tence can be awarded only in certain restricted categories where a
sentence

c r i m eholds o u t .a durable and continuing threat to social security in the

of a developing
country nd poses a grave peril to society's survival
setting econom offender intentionally mixes poison in drugs and
and when an

knowingly and
y and
intentionally causes death for the sake private profit andso
of
29

in the context of this provision,

on.

The expression special reasons

reasons' founded on the exceptionally grave
shviously means 'exceptional the
he particular case relating to the crime as well as
circumstances of the
eriminal.

"rarest of the rare" cases

Cases not fit for
9) Hon'ble High Courts have given capital punishment
In many cases the the ambits
Court held that such cases do not fall in'
but the Hon'ble Supreme but it is not possible to
cases. There is a list of such cases
of "rarest of rare where the Hon'ble Supreme
cases as examples
describe all cases here. Some follows.
rarest of the rare cases as
Court does not found fit for two
trial and High Court: Where there are
Two opinions of the Court reversed acquittal
and
trial court and the High
opinions, (acquittal by of the accused by
two courts.
awarded capital punishment)
as to the guilt but
death sentence
sentence could be not
Ordinarily, the proper attacked
another case, the accused had brutally
mprisonment for life." In

Punjab, 1980 AIR 267 1980SCC (1) 764

Bachchan Singh v. State of 2 SCR 684; Ambaram v. State
of Madhiya Pradesn,
Madhya Pradesh (u916)
38
Punjab, (1976)
Lwant Singh v. State of
Sarveshwar Prasad Sharma v.State of
6 4 SCC 298; and
SCR 560
AIR 1979 SC 916.
ayendra Prasad v. State of U.P, AIR 1986SC250
 CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATION N IN
IN INDIA
.
VICTIMOLOGY AND
82 PE NOLOGY.

with axes the husbnnd of their aister, who wns having an illieie
cused

court had
tound tw0 ofthe ace relationu
with another woman.

them to death.
The trinl
In nppenl the Iigh
Court
1rt
Court acquitted
in appeal
uilaceuey
thene ty e
sentenced
The Supreme Bet
because of lack of
passed by
ovidence.
the High Court but noticecd aside
judgment of acquittal in the r a r e s t
only heaCa
of rare and deserved
did not fall
before it

of six persons ca
imprisonment."
Where a group
Mere killing of two infants: and of themea
two of them adva
to the A
house of
with deadly weapons to the adjoininodva
them
A ran
menacingly
towards him. On seeing
killed two daughters of X.
The High Court confirmo0m room. Tu
the death
accused then the trial court. The Supro
by
de
sentence awarded
to both of
them
eC upren
Cour
unless the nature
stated that
of the crime circumstance
and the circumstane

a menace is society and +he sentey

to the
reveal that the criminal
offender
would be altogether inadequate,
in cases in nte
cases in
wh
of life imprisonment to shock thech the
diabolical and revolting
as
the
crime is brutal,
so

conscience of the community,

it would be permissible
to award the,
s
the collectiy
death
infants a r e killed, without more, is not
more, is not suff
m e r e fact that
tence. The
of the rarest of rare' cases ent
within the category

SuprSour
bring the c a s e
into life imprisonment." But Hon'hla
commuted the death sentence
rarest of the r a r e cases in Sushil Murmu
corene
Court said that it falls in
children: Where a person who was in
Poor man killed his three son

found himself unable to pay his

debts. He commitlo
penury and who ed the
murder of his three children. He was sentenced to death ath his
and his conw
convi
Court. Although the case was found +
was confirmed by the High be s
shocking to the conscience, this Court commuted the death penalty ife
imprisonment stating that the convict committed the offence in question
not
with the intention to commit the murder of his own children, but only hy way
of deliverance from the day to day strain of life, he being financial
crippled."
Mitigate circumstance and not having knowledge of the persons
presence in the burned house : Where ten persons came to the house of the
complainant during night armed with bombs and firearms. The house w
burned and three persons were burnt to death. Four of the accused were
sentenced to death by the trial court and the High Court confirmed the same
he court observed that as there was no evidence as to which of the acuse
had sprinkled kerosene and set fire to the room, it is
Cireumstance while considering the question of sentence. The fact that u
a
mitigatins
also
accused, though armed with firearms, did not use the weapons
taken note of by this Court. It was idence
also observed that there was were
to show that the
appellants knew or had reason to believe that there

31
State of Maharashtra y. Prakach Sat
 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 83

three
perSOns
insidto
side the ro0om hen the same wns Het on fire,"
N op r e - m e d i t a
ditated plan to kill three persons: Where in a case of triplo
e reme Court
Suprene Court held that the trinl court wns not justified in
urder;, t h e
as the accused had no pre-meditated plan to kill
sentence
a w a r d i n gd e n t h

the main object was to commit robbery."

tho

nand as a n d
as

p e r s o n
after rape:: Where the
the accused was alleged to have raped and
any after rape
Murderoung girl aged 14 years. The Supreme Court held that in order
rdered a youn

from
outs the appellant tied the sulwar around her
from raising shout. rais
her

esulted in
hieh resulted
prevent
in strangulation and her death. It was not a fit case in
to ome penalty
penalty of death sentence deserves to be imposed on the
e extreme
n e c k

which t h e

ACCUsed irl
aged 1% years resulted death : Where the accused was
on a girl
Rape 2ve committed rape rape on a girl aged 1% years and caused injuries
committed

have
to
alleged ulted in the death of the child. The court held that the crime
was undoubtedly serious and heinous and the
w h i c h r e s u l t e

wrhichitted by the accused

commi
of the appellant was reprehensible. It showed a dirty and perverted
the appella
who had no control over his carnal desires. The
h u m a n being
aduct

a
the sentence of life imprisonment for the capital
urt substituted
SupremeCourt s ubstitute

where the accused had raped a minor

re Similarly, in another case, death because of bleeding from her private
#he victim died a painfül
s e n t e n c e .

have had the

however, noted that the accused might not
g i r la n d

The Court, howev

parts The Court,
murdering the victim,
but her death was only the unfortunate
of
inte
ion
ence of the crime,
hence it did not fall within the rarest of
inevitable consequene

39
t h e r a r ec a s e s .

on a dispute betuween two neighbours : Where a dispute

Seuven murders
between two neighbours
resulted in the murder of seven
eor Small house on the accused by the trial
court which
Death sentence was imposed
nersons. The court observed that the bitterness
by the appellate court.
was confirmed and the agony suffered by the appellant
and his
to a boiling point
increased other party, and for not getting
members at the hands of the
family officers concerned or total
inaction despite repeated
protection from the police accused to take law in his own
or compelled the
written prayers, goaded murders. The accused was a BSF
which culminated in the gruesome
hands commuted the death penalty
23 at the time ofincident the Court
Jawan aged
toimprisonment for life. members of a family: The
Hon'ble
Robbed and murdered of five with further
commuted death sentence into life imprisonment
Supreme Court be released from prison unless he
had
shall not
drection that the appellant including the period alread
out at least 20 years of imprisonment
Served sentences passed for under sections
undergone by appellant and no separate

392.
Sheikh 1shaque v. State of Bihar, (1995) 3 SCCSCC 720.
v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 11
Debendran
37
Kumudi Lal v. State of U.P., (1999) 4 SCC 108.
2 SCC 28.
Mohd. Chaman v. Delhi Administration, (2001)
309.
Amrut Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006 (11) Scale
 TRAT OW IN INOA
ADMINIS
TOMAL

AND
(IRR
NOKGVY of th
of the rareat.
MN
OY
hotbarstiR
Viit
hit on
v o a r a
arnd tthe court the
of Sam
20

t h e
e r i m e
i
n e
nrd
of
nned
Court of Senaion
and 307 n j l l a n i

397
of
TPC
hoforo re thia
this convicti.
0 In
thie
r n e r

302
and
Mnrenver,

ernfenre
raene 0,
timme

sndr e a m a n i l
dealh

fheft
in la Where the ac
of sister

hoth
harr

p r h a t i m
r a s r

hrother
nnad
law
Ilo 8A AOntenred
ws

in
n
hs
mnther.

nnd
sister

held
held that tho
that the appellant
Arlini brother Court ir!
Sufpreme
mothrr.
Hon ble
his
kllod

p u n i s h m e n t
The
evidence The Supreme
p e n a l t y .c i r u m s t a n t i a l

deser
thr
death

dorrdrd
on
of the
accused

circumstantial
on the
ial evidence.
round that
Case penalty
death on
the s..
the Hon 'ble
based
c o m m u t e d

entirely where
was

p r a s e c u t o n
case

countless
other
cases,

life
i m p r i s o n m e n t .
But the facta
There
are
sentence
to
not p a r a l l e l
to the
to the facts
death are
the those
cases
commuted
of
of many
c i r c u m s t a n c e s

CASe death sentence.

c a s e s " fit
for
of the
rare
Court held held that such case
10)
"Rarest
Supreme do fa
the Hon ble cases hue
In many
cases
cases. There
1s a list of such ut it is t
of rare
giving some cases
"rarest as
ambits of
in the
describe all
cases
here but
fit tor "rarest
of the rare
rare
we a r e
ampla
ecases
possible to Court found
Supreme
where the Hon ble
follows the accused committed nine
children: Where rders
Killing of nine inflicting more than one injury whis
small children by
and that too of of nature to cause death and thu
course
in the ordinary
sufficient
friend's whole family including
his old parents
exterminated his trusted
for achieving his vicious object
of relieving him of h
wife and five children
cash and valuables. The Supreme
Court held that special reasons really ens
for death sentence."
Motite for multiple murder was gain: Where in a case of multpe
murder, motive for murder was gain, as murders were perpetrated in a crue
callous and fiendish fashion. The Supreme Court declined to interfere wih
sentence of death, though the accused was 22 years of age and the case reste
on the cireumstantial evidence."
Professional child killer and attempt to extract ransom : Where
u
accused professional child lifter who attempted to extract
was a

murdering the child inducing the father to believe that the childransom
was allve"
was held to be a rarest of the rare case
justifying death sentence.
Murderer und conspirator of murder of political leader (then r Prime
Shri Bhagwan v. State
of Rajasthan, (2001)
42
Lehna State of
v. 6 SCC 296.
43 Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC
Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. Stute 76.
44
SP Sharma v. State of of Assam, 2007 (2)
4 Javed Ahmed v. State UP, AIR 1977 SC Scale 42.
46 of Maharashtra, 2423.
Henrey Welmuller v Stu AIR 1988 SGK
 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 85

1eCourt held the case one of the rarest of rare cases

eme

The Supi
w h e r ec o n V I C l e d
murderer and conspirator of the then Prime Minister
w o r o

hinsthr dhi. The court held that act of the accused not only takes
5 m t inahrn aDular leader but also undermines our system which ha
of,

the
oll for
ile
for the last forty years. Moreover, accused were posted
well

the
the attack of others. Additionally an unarmed lady was
So

a w a y

w o r k I n g .
from
toprotect
heen
her persons with a series of bullets, entered her body. In this
pers.

two

by even the conspirator who inspired the persons who

attack
o e
fdthe matter,

deserve
any lenieney in the matter of sentence. The
does not
the trial court and maintained by the High Court
warded by
actua. 7
death
sentence
and proper.
appeared
to bejust The Supreme Court held that the case falls in
the
Murdering:

Mass
the rare cases,
where accused persons forming unlawful assembly
Three
rar o ft in most barbaric m a n n e r of five persons.
n a murders
committing murder

alive in smoldering
v e r e d , a n i n n o c ent
en boy of 10 years was roasted
due to grievous
died in the hospital after 17 days
a n d

a s diec
h e a d s s e v e r

wras members
person
under belief that family
one
and
accused persons were brother of
had earlier murdered
fire case

ion to suspects who

this
nd. In protection
in same
giving
killing them by way of revenge
d e c e a s e d ,

his head,
of by severing
a c c u s e d

held
held that this case squaring
falls within ambit
Court
main
Supreme commission of crime,
The m a n n e r of
account
ner. taking into
re cases" tal
given death
sentence
rare
Court has
sentence. The Supreme
"rarest of
of death
nroper for "*
Court held that
The Hon'ble Supreme
a c c u s e d .

gathered in a
six marriage:
to
Mass murdering
at 10-15 minutes
on persons

c o n tin u o u s i y firing tor and injured several

annellants by house, killed 17 persons
and shocked,
marriage beingheld in a lady'sincident was extremely revolting
appel

committed by appel-
was held
that, entire murder
athers, It and acts of circumstances
community
conscience of that aggravating
collective merciless and brutal case
where
not a
gruesome, t
was
were so
of justice and
Circumstances.

lants meet ends

mitigating sentence to
far outweighed life w a s a n adequate
confirmed.*
for had to be
imprisonment appellant the case in
imposed on Court count
death
sentence
manner: The Supreme five
murders in brutal
found guilty of committing
Five the accused extenuating
or
cases" where and there is
no
rarest of the
rare that
properties Court held
to grab Supreme
in brutal
manner

accused. The
in favour of 0
murders
circumstances

mitigating
death sentence proper.
is provocation:The

imposition of pre-planned
without of
deceased
relative
murder involving was in
appellant he was
Brutal held that where occurrence,

Hon'ble preme Court them. On

night of next morning.
On
with house on
and was on visiting t e r m s leaving
their
seen
because of injuries
death
npany of deceased
and wa met
homicidal
deceased
that intervening night

SC 1583
AIR 1988
Kehar Singh v. Delhi Administration,
Shiv Ram State UP, AIR
1998 SC 4187. 49
v.
2003 SC
urdeu Singh v. State
Punjab, AIR A T R 1998 SC 2889.
of
 CORRECTIONAL
INISTRATIONIN INDIA
ADMINISTRATION

AND
vICTIMOLOGY

PENOLOGY,

86 contnined
lood of sam
VI,
which Kro
M.0. instance of aappellant.
of ppellant
It
caused by weapon
like
was
r e c o v e r e d
at
such a deliberata
and
wa8 hela
of
decensed,
which
c o m m i t l e d
in
diat
provocation
what
ness aoev
that was

murder in question sleeping,

withou
kind"atan
that were and
manner
while
victims

too having
enjoyed
hospitality
of nDne
oach of appellant
of vie
victims'
side, that pre-meditated
approach
from and
age just
years age just to
to
gain somoe
cold-blooded

indicated child of three years

ofthree
tims, included a Bo
has held that the High
High
which

ses" Court w
victims,
to death Court
benefit. The Supreme of rare cases" Waa
award invlvin
a "rarest
monetary instant case was

pre-planned
that
justified in holding murder
brutal
without provocation and in
awarding death
death
Where appellant sao
sentence to appellant."

Sacrificeda child before

Kali
Goddess Kali :

and threw his

severed head in pond whick
erificed
face was
Goddess
child before and imploring fo
even if helpless
was held that,
later recovered. It
dness in hhea n
trace of kindness and
of innocent child did not a r o u s e any
voice severed head of deceasnof
nonchalant way in which he carried ed in a
accused, showed that act was diahol
gunny bag
and threw it in pond, unerringly o diaboli
most superlative degree in conception and cruel in execution
justification for any killing ,
execution. The
superstition cannot and does not provide
less a planned and deliberate one, and no amount of superstitious colo much
r can
wash away sin and offence of an unprovoked killing, more so in case of
of an
innocent and defenceless child. It was held, that instant case we
illustrative and most exemplary case to be treated as rarest of rare caso
which death sentence should be the rule.
in
Killer of wife and own child, while on parole: 'The accused murdered
his wife, but during the bail, he married again and his second wife
gave birth
to a child. Meanwhile he was convicted for the murder of his
first wife for
imprisonment of life. After executing the sentence, while he was on
killed his second wife and his own child, is the fittest case parole.
of rarest of rare
Killing of full family by couple: The accused couple had, in a
diabolic manner, ended the lives of their family members, which
most
stepbrother of the wife, his children and even her own included the
sister, all with the motive of father, mother and
Court noting the cold-blooded andinheriting the family
property. The Supreme
family while they were all pre-meditated approach in murdering the
sleeping
imposition of death penalty on the considered it as a fit case for the
couple.
of the
Killing of children by tenant: The accused
family where he had been had
murdered the children
while they were staying as
tenant for the past four a

members of the sleeping. He thereafter proceeded to years,

to their rescue.family who on
hearing the attack the adult
The court screams of their children had
noting the brutality of come
manner of the
ata
51
Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of
52
Sushil Murmu Orissa, AIR 2003 SO n01
 PUNISHMENT
for the
87
2514de r e d
it,
fit case osition of desth sentence
pist and mur rer of girl
The aceused
7v7cted
'twice f o r
e
the
for t r raping
of
of a ninor girl, but on the had already heen
sentence
only two years and on the second, first KCAsion he
ded
a
Drisonment
only. When the accused wa sentence of ten
mprisnor girls
m u r d e r i n E T w o m i n a r
convicted of rapingyears
again, the court
refused to
ce awarded by the subordinate courts"
thsentence
interfere with and
the
murderer of girl child:
conceal his crime The accused had, after
nd
by inserting a stick in raping
Rapist

a six

rimately
ulted causing
in caus her death. The court
resulted her vagina
the accused only
o f thhe deserved noted that the
a death sentence."
had raped and murdered a nine In
a c t s

d e p r a v e d

year old girl. The

another
there
the reiecting the argument that the
evidence, do conviction
death penalty should not be having
Supreme
awarded,been
affirmed
evidence, based
circumstan
tial awarded by the subordinate court.
enalty
in
the. death p of
Murderer f six.
six members
of a family: Where six members of
murderedh by the accused leaving only three survivors over family
a

Were
a The trial court awarded them death sentence. The some
ersonal e n m i

Court commuted the sentence to one of life

High
imprisonment. The
Court i n appeal
noting the brutality of murder held that the Supreme
accused
deserved only a a death penalty.

Methods ofexecuting death sentence:

a1) Ta main methods of execution of capital punishment are thus -
electrocution, beheading by guillotine, shooting or asphyxiation by
The most common method of execution of capital punishment
etc.
lethal gas,
countries of the world is hanging
neck till the offender by
in most of the
the chamber and electrical shocks are
dnth In some western countries,& (5) gasSection 354 of the Code of Criminal
slso applied. In India,
clauses (3) of
describe the contents of judgement for death sentence as
Procedure, 1973
follows-

is for an offënce punishable with death

3) When the conviction
with imprisonment for life or imprisonment
or, in the alternative, reasons for the
term of years, the judgement shall state the
for a
death, the speciad
sentence auwarded and in the case of sentence of

reasonsfor such sentence." shall

sentence
death, the
is sentenced to
6) When any person
till he is dead.
direct that he be hanged by the neck
sentence:
2Constitutional validity of
execution of death The
21 of the Constitution:
violative of Article
2unging by rope" is not
442.
2008 (4) SCALE
ryeet Kumar Singh v. State ofBihar, (2008) 11 SCC113.
n Anna Chavan v. State ofMaharashtra,
Bantu v. State of UP, 2008 (10) Scale 336.
56.
Shivaji v. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 2009 SC
dte of U.P. v. Sattan, 2009 (3) Scale 394.