Open Access Research Article
CAPITAL PUNISHMNENT (By- Muskan Goyal & Anjali Dhupar)
Published Paper
Author Details
Author Name: Muskan Goyal & Anjali Dhupar
Title: CAPITAL PUNISHMNENT
Email Id: mgoyal2907@gmail.com & anjaliai880@mail.com
Article Details
CAPITAL PUNISHMNENT
Authored By- Muskan
Goyal
&
Anjali Dhupar
“Most people approve of capital punishment, but most people
wouldn't do the hangman's job.”
Aim
This paper aims to understand the concept of capital punishment, study
the various methods of capital punishment in India, and analyse the application of capital punishment in cases.
Objective
·
To understand the concept of capital punishment and its origin.
·
To analyse the need
for capital punishment.
·
To study the various methods of capital
punishment.
Introduction
India is a country where criminals and wrongdoers exist. In India, all
judgments are aimed at punishing
offenders. The penalty is imposed for two reasons: firstly, the wrongdoer must
bear the consequences, and secondly,
punishing the offender demotivates those who share the same mind-set. In India, several punishments are
available depending on the offence, including capital punishment, detention, life imprisonment,
jail with a fine, and fines.
Capital punishment is a hard punishment. Almost every country on the
planet has used this punishment at
some point. Capital punishment has never been abandoned as a form of punishment
in the history of human
civilization. Capital punishment for murder, treason, arson and rape was often used in ancient Greece under the rules of
Draco (fl. 7th century BCE), but Plato believed that it should only be used for the incorrigible. It was also used by
Romans for a variety of offences, however,
citizens were excused for a brief period during the republic. "The Roman
Republic did not abolish capital
punishment, while its non-use was primarily controlled by the practices of punishment or exile, as well as the procedure of questions," writes
Sir Henry Marine.
The issue of capital punishment was not discussed in the British India
Legislative Assembly until 1931, when
Shri Gaya Prasad Singh, a member from Bihar, attempted to propose a Bill to
abolish the death penalty for
offences under the Indian Penal Code. When the Ministry Of home affairs responded, the motion was lost. Before
independence, the government's perspective on capital punishment in British India was addressed twice in debates in
the Legislative Assembly by the Home Minister,
Sir John Thorne. "The administration does not consider the removing of
capital punishment for any crime for which it is currently used is a wise decision."
Meaning
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a
state-sanctioned act of murdering anyone as
a punishment for breaking the law. Execution is the act of carrying out a death
sentence, which is a judgment that instructs
an offender to be punished in this manner. A prisoner who has been sentenced
to death and is now awaiting execution is referred to as
being on "death row."
Capital crimes or capital offenses vary by jurisdiction but commonly
include serious crimes against the
person, such as murder, mass murder, aggravated rape (often including child
sexual abuse), terrorism, aircraft
hijacking, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, as well as crimes against
the state, such as attempting to overthrow the government, treason, espionage, and sabotage. Aggravated robbery, and kidnapping, in
addition to drug trafficking, drug dealing, and drug possession, are all considered as capital crimes or
enhancements in some cases.
Methods Of
Death Penalty
Hanging, shooting, lethal injection, beheading, stoning, gas inhalation
are all used in India to carry out
the capital punishment. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, hanging is
the mode of execution in the civilian
court system. The Army Act of 1950, however, lists both hanging and shooting
as official methods of execution in the
military court-martial
system.
In 2020, sexual offences accounted for 50 (65%) of the 77 total death
sentences handed down by trial courts,
the highest number in five years. Minors were involved in 82 per cent of sexual
offence cases, or 65 percent of all
cases. As of December 31, 2020, there are 404 persons on death row, with Uttar Pradesh having the highest (59),
Maharashtra having 45, and Madhya Pradesh having 37. With only two death row inmates, Andhra Pradesh is
the state with the fewest. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Indian judiciary was seen in 2020, with a
dramatic decline in the amount of death sentences
imposed by trial tribunals. Prior to the announcement of the lockdown on March
24, 2020, trial courts had imposed 62 percent of death
sentences in the first three months of the year.
According to the research, the total figures would have been much higher
if the pandemic had not occurred.
Although, the overall number of death sentences imposed by sessions
courts has decreased from 153 in
2016 to 77 in 2020, the proportion of death penalty cases involving sexual
offences has steadily increased, from
17.64 percent in 2016 to 37.27 percent in 2017, 41.10 percent in 2018, 53.39
percent in 2019, and nearly 65
percent in 2020. India has carried out eight executions since 2000, the most recent of which happened in 2020. On March
20, 2020, Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma,
and Pawan Kumar, who were on death row for the gang rape and murder of Jyoti
Singh in December 2012, were beheaded.
YakubMemon was sentenced to death in July 2015, Afzal Guru was sentenced
to death in February 2013,
AjmalKasab was sentenced to death in November 2012, and Dhananjoy Chatterjee
was sentenced to death in August 2004.
74.1 percent of those put to death were financially disadvantaged,
according to their profession and landholding,
with 93 percent of those sentenced to death hailing from Kerala. 23 percent had
never attended school, and 76% were from low-income
families or religious minorities.
|
Capital Offences in Indian Penal
Code (IPC)
|
||
|
S.no.
|
Section Number
|
Description
|
|
1.
|
Section 121
|
Treason, for waging war against the Government of Indian
|
|
2.
|
Section 132
|
Abetment of mutiny actually committed
|
|
3.
|
Section 194
|
Perjury resulting in the conviction and
death of an innocent
person
|
|
4.
|
Section 195A
|
Threating or inducing any person to give false
evidence resulting in
the conviction and death of
an innocent person
|
|
5.
|
Section 302
|
Murder
|
|
6.
|
Section 305
|
Abetment of a suicide by a minor,
insane person or intoxicated person
|
|
7.
|
Section 307
(2)
|
Attempted murder by a serving life convict
|
|
8.
|
Section 364A
|
Kidnapping for ransom
|
|
9.
|
Section 376A
|
Rape and
injury which causes
death or leaves
the woman in a persistent vegetative state
|
|
10.
|
Section 376E
|
Certain repeat
offenders in the
context of rape
|
|
11.
|
Section 396
|
Dacoity with murder
|
|
Capital Offences in Other Laws
|
||
|
S.No.
|
Section Number
|
Description
|
|
1.
|
Sections 34, 37, and 38(1)
|
The Air Force Act, 1950
|
|
2.
|
Section 3 (1) (i)
|
The Andhra
Pradesh Control of Organised Crime
Act,2001
|
|
3.
|
Section 27 (3)
|
The Arms Act, 1959
(repealed)
|
|
4.
|
Section 34,
37, and 38(1)
|
The Army Act, 1950
|
|
5.
|
Section 21,
24, 25(1)(a), and 55
|
The Assam Rifles Act,
2006
|
|
6.
|
Section 65A(2)
|
The Bombay Prohibition (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 2009
|
|
7.
|
Sections 14,
17, 18(1)(a), and 46
|
The Border Security Force
Act, 1968
|
|
8.
|
Sections 17 and 49
|
The Coast Guard Act, 1978
|
|
9.
|
Section 4(1)
|
The Commission of Sati (Prevention)
Act, 1987
|
|
10.
|
Section 5
|
The Defence of India
Act, 1971
|
|
11.
|
Section 3
|
The Geneva Conventions Act,
1960
|
|
12.
|
Section 3 (b)
|
The Explosive Substances Act,
1908
|
|
13.
|
Sections 16,
19, 20(1)(a), and 49
|
The Indo-Tibetan Border
Police Force Act,
1992
|
|
14.
|
Section 3(1)(i)
|
The Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000
|
|
15.
|
Section 3(1)(i)
|
The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime
Act, 1999
|
|
16.
|
Section 31A(1)
|
The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
|
|
17.
|
Section 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43,
44, 49(2)(a), 56(2),
and 59
|
The Navy Act, 1957
|
|
18.
|
Section 15(4)
|
The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
rights of user in land)
Act, 1957.
|
|
19.
|
Section 16,
19, 20(1)(a), and 49
|
The SashastraSeemaBal Act, 2007
|
|
20.
|
Section 3 (2) (i)
|
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989
|
|
21.
|
Section 3(1)
(I)
|
The Suppression of unlawful Acts
against Safety of Maritime Navigation and Fixed Platforms on
Continental Shelf Act,
2002:
|
|
22.
|
Sections 10 (b)(i) and Section 16
(1) (a)
|
The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967
|
|
Source: India. Law Commission of India, Report
no.262 on Death Penalty, August
2015, pp.31-32S
|
||
Case Laws
The Supreme Court ruled in Jagmohan
v. State of Uttar Pradesh that Articles 14, 19, and 21 did not infringe the death penalty. The judge
was reported to choose between the death penalty and life in prison based on the circumstances,
facts, and nature of the offence that were documented throughout the trial. As a result, the decision to impose the
death penalty was made in line with the legal procedure, as required by Article
21.
However, in Rajendra Prasad v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, the judge ruled that capital punishment could not be justified unless the
defendant posed a threat to society. The judge argues that the death penalty should be abolished, with the
exception of "white collar crimes." It was also determined that the death penalty for murder awarded
under I.P.C. Section 302 did not contradict the constitution's fundamental characteristic.
However, in Bachan Singh v. State
of Punjab, the Supreme Court noted that Article 21 of the Constitution recognises the State's
authority to deprive a person of his life in line with an equitable, fair, and reasonable method established
out by law. Furthermore, the death sentence for a murder offence granted under Section
302 I.P.C. does not violate
the Constitution's basic character.
The case of Vinay Sharma v. Union
of India (2020), widely known as the Nirbhaya
gang-rape case, had outraged the
nation's conscience. The terrible and violent tragedy occurred on a bus in Delhi's chilly weather. Six people were
accused of viciously rapping the girl, which resulted in her death. She was also flung naked to the
road after an iron rod was shoved into her private parts. Her death resulted from the physical and
mental suffering she had endured. One of the accused committed himself in jail when the
case was brought before the court, and one of the accused was a minor, thus he was not sentenced to
death.The other four defendants, on the other hand, were condemned to death and will be hanged in 2020. After considering
the aggravating and mitigating elements,
this decision was reached. If there were any, the aggravating factors
outweighed the mitigating aspects.
Because life imprisonment deemed insufficient in light of the circumstances of the crime and the horrific torture that led to the victim's death, the death
penalty was imposed.
The lady was sentenced to death in Shabnam
v. the Union of India (2015), and she was hanged for the first time in the Indian criminal court system. Shabnam
and her lover assassinated members of her
family in this case. In the year 2008, this incident occurred. Shabnam
assassinated her family members for
refusing to let her marry her lover. As a result, she devised a horrible murder
plot for her family, which served as
an aggravating circumstance. She didn't even leave her baby nephew (who was just 10 months old) and forced
him to wear a bloody robe. She also requested clemency from the president, which was denied, and she is expected to be hanged
by the end of the year.
In the case of the Hyderabad
veterinarian (2019), the female doctor was alone in her scooter, which she parked at the Shamdabad plaza
and from which she took a taxi to her office. Meanwhile, four suspects were keeping an eye on her, which led them to
puncture her scooter when she was away. When she
returned home from work, she discovered that her scooter
had a puncture.
Meanwhile, these four accused
arrived and began torturing and rapping her, as
well as setting fire to her body. The case was clear-cut enough
for a death sentence to be handed down, but when the police came upon the accused,
it raised doubts about our Indian criminal justice system.
The Jessica Lal case, also
known as SidharthaVashisht @ Manu Sharma
v. the State (NCT Of Delhi) (2010),
was one of the horrible death cases that taught society that money can buy
anything but justice. When the girl
refused to provide drink to one of the accused, she was shot to death. Her sister had to rush to all of the courts
for justice for her sister, eventually leading to the suomotu case being taken to the High Court through a
media trial. The accused in this case misled the key eye witness into becoming a hostile witness, prompting the court to
sentence him to life in jail.After considering the balance of aggravating and
mitigating variables, this decision was made.
SurendraKoli v. the State of Uttar
Pradesh (2011), popularly known as NithariKaand,
was one of the most stunning
developments for Indians in 2007. The bodies of the murdered children and adults were discovered at Mohinder Singh
Pandher's home in the Noida village of Nithari. When the case was investigated further, it was discovered that the
girls' bodies had been raped, killed, and eaten
by him. He was sentenced to death after committing such a crime on fifteen
girls. The aggravating factors
applied to him. However, due to particular plea bargaining conditions, he was sentenced
to life in jail.
Capital Punishment In The Early 21st Century
Despite the demand for abolition, many countries have retained capital
punishment in place, and some have
even expanded its scope. Importing and possessing certain pharmaceuticals for
the intention of selling them is
banned in more than 30 countries. In Iran, Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines, even small amounts of
prohibited narcotics are punishable. Around three-quarters of those executed in Singapore in 2000, which
has by far the highest execution rate per capita of any country, were convicted of drug offences. In about 20 countries,
bribery and corruption of public officials, embezzlement of public funds,
currency speculation, and theft of huge sums of cash are all
punishable by death. Sexual violations of various kinds are punishable
by death in about two dozen countries,
including most Islamic regimes. In the early twenty-first century, China had
more than 50 capital offences.
Despite the massive number of capital offences across the globe, just
about 30 countries carry out executions
each year. Since 1976, approximately two-thirds of all executions in the United
States have happened in just six
states: Texas, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, where the death penalty is currently applied by
roughly 60% of states and the federal government (when new death penalty
laws were affirmed
by the Supreme Court). China was supposed
to execute around 1,000 people per year until the
first decade of the twenty-first century (no trustworthy numbers are available), when estimates of the number of
fatalities dropped substantially. Several countries,
including Belarus, Congo (Kinshasa), Iran, Jordan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia,
Singapore, Taiwan, Vietnam,
and Yemen, punish offenders on a regular basis, despite the fact that the number of executions changes from year to year.
Both Japan and India have had the death penalty in place and have executed people on occasion.
Only a few countries allow for the execution of criminals who were minors
at the time of the crime. The vast
majority of these executions took place in the United States, which has not
signed the Convention on the Rights
of the Child but has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, despite its opposition
to the death sentence. Beginning in the late 1990s, there was intense debate about whether the death
penalty should be administered upon mentally ill people; much of the debate centred on US practises, where more than a
dozen such executions happened between
1990 and 2001, despite a UN ban in 1989.In 2002 and 2005, the U.S. Supreme
Court Held that executions of the
mentally ill and those under the age of 18 were unconstitutional, and in 2014,
it ruled that states could not
define mental handicap as an IQ score of 70 or below. The capital punishment for rape was abolished by the
court in 1977, while the capital punishment for child rape was abolished
in 2008.
In the 1990s, numerous states in the U.S. considered capital punishment
prohibited after a series of cases in
which people convicted of capital crimes and on death row were cleared on the
basis of new evidence, particularly
evidence based on new DNA-testing technology. Governor George Ryan of Illinois issued such an order in 2000,
highlighting the fact that the state had executed 12 people between 1977 and 2000, but had overturned
the death penalties of 13 others during the same time period. In 2003, right before leaving office, Ryan vacated the
state's death row by pardoning four criminals
and commuting the sentences of 167 others. Among the states that have abandoned
capital punishment are New Jersey
(2007), Illinois (2011),
Connecticut (2012), Washington (2018), and
Virginia (2021). Governors of Oregon (2011), Pennsylvania (2015), and
California (2016) imposed moratoriums, supporting abolitionist movements in the
United States (2019).
Arguments For And Against Capital
Punishment
The morality of capital punishment and its impact on criminal behaviour have long been argued.
Modern arguments for and against capital punishment are categorized into
three parts: moral, utilitarian, and practical.
Moral arguments
People who commit murder, according to supporters of the capital
punishment, have forfeited their right
to life because they have taken the life of another. Furthermore, they believe
that capital punishment is a legal form of retribution that expresses and reinforces not only the moral anger of the victim's family, but also the moral
indignation of all law-abiding citizens. Capital punishment critics argued that, by justifying the
behaviour that the state is attempting to repress—killing—capital punishment sends a conflicting moral
message, citing CesareBeccaria's books (especially On Crimes and Punishments [1764]). Furthermore, they
say that capital punishment for small offences is wrong because it is totally
unjustified to the harm suffered.
Abolitionist’s further say that capital punishment is inherently cruel
and degrading since it violates a person's right to
life.
Although death was imposed for crimes in many sacred religious scriptures
and was historically frequently executed
with the support
of religious hierarchy, there
is no clarity today across religious religions, or among groups or sects within them, on the
morality of capital punishment. In the latter
half of the twentieth century, an increasing number of religious
leaders, mainly from Judaism and
Roman Catholicism, began agitating against it. The state of Israel
abolished capital punishment for all
crimes except treason and crimes against humanity, which Pope John Paul II
condemned as "cruel and unnecessary."
Utilitarian arguments
Capital punishment proponents say that it is a particularly effective
deterrent for potentially violent offenders
for whom the penalty of imprisonment is insufficient. On the other hand,
opponents cite evidence that the
capital punishment is not a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment or
long- term incarceration.
Practical arguments
There are also worries as to whether the capital punishment can be
carried out in a fair and reasonable
manner. Supporters of capital punishment believe that laws and procedures could
well be developed to ensure
that only those who absolutely
deserve to die are put to
death. On the other hand, opponents claim that the history of
capital punishment shows that attempting to single out specific types of offences as deserving of death is arbitrary and
discriminatory. They also point to other factors
that they think to prevent capital punishment from being applied fairly, claiming that the poor and ethnic and religious
minorities frequently lack access to good legal representation, that racial prejudice motivates predominantly
white juries in capital cases to convict black and other non- white defendants in disproportionate
numbers, and that mistakes are unavoidable even in a well-run criminal justice system, and that because mistakes are unavoidable even in a well-run criminal
justice system. Finally, they
argue that because the capital punishment appeal system is lengthy, those who
have been sentenced to death are
often cruelly forced to endure
long periods of uncertainty about their fate.
Conclusion
In the long history of the Indian criminal justice system, these were the
only truly dreadful death cases.
Multiple incidents, such as the Hathras Gang Rape Case, the Aarushi Talwar
Murder Case (Noida Double Murder
Case), and the Unnao Gang Rape Case, are still under investigation or without a conclusive decision, but now the
severity of the crime certainly asks for the capital punishment. In order
to avoid future
incidents of similar violence, these precedents serve as the case study. Most importantly, while passing
judgment in such cases, it is always vital to find a balance between
aggravating and mitigating
circumstances.
Capital punishment is often challenged on the grounds that society has a
moral responsibility to ensure its citizens'
safety and welfare. Murderers lay this safety and welfare in risk. Society can
only ensure that convicted killers
don't kill again by putting criminals to death. Death penalty is one such practise that society should support in
order to maintain a balance of light (good) over darkness (evil). It is often argued that executing
criminals who have been found guilty of murder will discourage future attacks. Families of the victims are also offered comfort by it.
In order to make sure that everyone is treated fairly is what justice
means. It is essential that society punishes perpetrators with punishment that
is at least as severe as the
hardship faced by innocent
victims and their families. Society shouldn't allow offenders by allowing
them to escape with paying less
than what the victim has paid and suffered. According to the seriousness of
their crimes, people should be given
what is owed to them. Criminals should get what is due to them and should be suitably
punished for their misconduct.
The excessive delay in carrying out the capital punishment has reduces
the impact of the justice. . Just because
of that, a significant part of the population supported the Hyderabad police
encounter in Disha's case. In order to gain public
trust in our judicial system, it is necessary to accelerate investigations done by a well-trained and equipped police force, supported by fast track trials.
References
·
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. (2002).
·
Bader, C. D., Desmond, S. A., Mencken, F. C., Johnson,
B. R. (2010). Divine justice: The relationship
between images of God and attitudes toward criminal punishment. Criminal Justice
Review, 35, 90-106.
·
Bohm, R. M. (2003). Deathquest II: An introduction to
the theory and practice of capital punishment in the
United States. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson.
Sources
Article Information
CAPITAL PUNISHMNENT (By- Muskan Goyal & Anjali Dhupar)
Author Name: Muskan Goyal & Anjali Dhupar
Title: CAPITAL PUNISHMNENT
Email Id: mgoyal2907@gmail.com & anjaliai880@mail.com
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2022/06/25
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- AbbreviationIJLRA
- ISSN2582-6433
- AccessOpen Access
- LicenseCC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.