Open Access Research Article
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW (2022-2027) BY: SURESH KANNA P
Published Paper
Article Details
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ALLIANCE SCHOOL
OF LAW (2022-2027)
AUTHORED BY: SURESH KANNA P
(2022BBLHO7ASL001)
ABSTRACT:
The death penalty, also known as
capital punishment, vary widely due to historical and ethical factors. This method of punishment
involves executing individuals convicted of committing crimes, with proponents seeing it as a means to uphold justice
and ensure societal safety, while opponents argue it violates
fundamental human rights. Throughout history, various cultures,
including Babylonian, Egyptian, and Chinese, have employed death as
retribution and a deterrent for crimes.
In more recent
times, structured legal systems have defined crimes
deserving of capital
punishment, such as treason and murder.
Presently, there are significant
international discrepancies in the application of the death penalty. Capital punishment elicits differing
international responses, with China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq still carrying out sizable numbers of
executions, whereas Europe mostly abstains because of anxieties encompassing fallibility, severity, and biased allocation.
Those advocating for the death penalty argue that it acts as a potent
discouragement for illicit
activities and offers emotional relief
to relatives affected by tragedy whilst rendering appropriate judgement.
Evaluations of capital punishment,
nonetheless, should integrate manifold standpoints supplemented by
substantiated data. Whilst
appreciating how the practice promotes
justice senses post devastating incidents, such as murder, it
remains imperative to acknowledge major shortcomings. Empirical studies suggest that the death penalty exhibits scant
influence over lowering overall criminal occurrences and potentially instigates dilemmas, such as unjust adjudications
and partial enforcement affecting distinct
populaces. Objectivity demands sensitivity toward all outcomes connected to
capital punishment utilization.
Furthermore, moral and ethical concerns exist around the issue of taking lives and potential violations of human rights standards. It is essential
to engage in comprehensive discussions that weigh these pros and
cons while considering shifting attitudes towards capital punishment among different population
segments and political ideologies.
Supporters must acknowledge potential
pitfalls and discriminatory practices, while opponents should recognize the emotional responses tied to addressing
serious crimes. Ultimately, fostering comprehensive deliberations may lead to more reasoned
resolutions on this contentious issue.
Capital punishment, which is also referred
to as the death penalty,
is a legally sanctioned process
through which the state puts to death an individual found guilty of committing a severe crime, colloquially termed a "capital" offense. Tracing
back to antiquity, the implementation of the death penalty has existed in
numerous societies worldwide. Ancient cultures, including
Babylonia, Egypt, and China, employed it as retribution for grave transgressions such as homicide
or high treason, sometimes
involving brutal modes of execution like immolation, live burial, or impalement. Similarly, the Roman Empire
utilized the death penalty extensively, employing diverse techniques spanning decapitation
to crucifixion. Throughout the European
Middle Ages, the practice endured as a penal measure
targeting infractions beyond murder alone, extending to larceny, conflagration, and sorcery.
Modernization brought forth
comparatively merciful procedures of
execution comprising hanging, electric
chair usage, and lethal injection
administration. Nevertheless, controversy surrounding the fairness
and impartiality of the death
penalty persisted due to frequent
allegations of classism
and racism influencing verdicts. Initial instances
of American capital
punishment date back to
1608, marking Captain George Kendall's
execution in Jamestown, Virginia over charges
of espionage. Eventually, the spectrum of
punishable misdeeds broadened, encompassing
felonies like theft, arson, and sodomy. Post World War II, mounting
resistance emerged within the U.S., culminating
in the abolishment of the death penalty in multiple jurisdictions. The landmark case of
Furman v. Georgia (1972) prompted the
U.S. Supreme Court to deem existing capital
punishment practices unconstitutional, thereby temporarily suspending all executions countrywide.
Four years subsequent, the court recanted, permitting newly instituted statutes
delineating stringent parameters for capital offenses and sentencing discretion for jurors deliberating death penalties. Ever since, regional disparities characterize the utilization of capital punishment across America.
As of now, global discourse concerning
the death penalty continues dividing
opinions, given divergent
stances between nations.
Some countries prohibit
the practice entirely; meanwhile, others maintain
it as judicial redress for egregious crimes.
Reportedly, Amnesty International documented 657 state-sanctioned killings globally in 2020, primarily
occurring in five nations: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Egypt.
Advocates endorse the death penalty citing deterrence against violent criminal activity, furnishing solace to grieving
family members, and restricting capital
sentences solely to
appalling offenses like calculated murders.
Opponents counterargue, asserting breaches of fundamental human rights accompanied by uneven impacts upon ethnic minorities and economically
underprivileged cohorts. Moreover,
irreversible errors could result in
blameless parties receiving capital punishment. Detractors further emphasize successful reductions of violent
crime witnessed elsewhere
sans reliance on the death penalty. Notwithstanding vigorous arguments favoring
either side, the future trajectory of capital punishment remains uncertain amidst fluctuating societal
perceptions and values.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN AMERICA:
Britain significantly shaped America's
employment of the death penalty more than any other nation.
European immigrants brought along the custom of implementing capital
punishment upon establishing themselves in new territories. Historical records indicate that the initial
execution took place in the early American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, specifically in 1608, wherein Captain George Kendall lost his
life after being found guilty
of acting as a spy for Spain. This marked the commencement of capital
punishment in the American colonies.Subsequently, in 1612, Governor
Sir Thomas Dale passed the
Divine, Moral and Martial Laws,
mandating capital punishment for seemingly
petty misdemeanors, including
filching fruits, poultry, and engaging in trade with Native Americans.
Jurisprudence pertaining to the death
penalty fluctuated amongst
the separate colonies. For example, the Massachusetts Bay Colony conducted
its initial execution
in 1630, preceding the implementation of the
Capital Laws of New England
by several years. Similarly,
the New York Colony adopted the Duke's Laws of 1665, penalizing acts such as physically
assaulting parents or denouncing "the
true God" with the severest punishment available
- execution. (As cited in Randa, 1997).[1]
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT:
Conflicts pertaining to the consistency of capital punishment with the principles outlined in the U.S. Constitution have surfaced recurrently ever since the establishment
of the nation. These disputes reflect varying
interpretations of constitutional provisions related to the legality
and application of the death
penalty. Given the Eighth
Amendment's ban on harsh punishments,
questions arise about whether capital
punishment goes against this rule. An illustrative example of objection is seen in the seminal
1972 case Furman
v. Georgia, where
the Supreme Court nullified prevalent death penalty statutes due to worries
about unreliable verdicts
causing a countrywide suspension of executions. However, just four years after, in Gregg v. Georgia, the
Court analyzed the situation anew, finding that fresh state
policies instructing juries
on death penalty
qualifications adequately handled
prior complaints expressed
in Furman. Hence, the Court accepted that capital punishment could comply with the
Eighth Amendment provided
it takes place reasonably and uniformly.
Modern litigation now targets
dilemmas such as racial biases,
mental limitations, and youthful position,
generating crucial decisions curtailing the extent of the
death penalty, like Atkins v. Virginia (halting
execution of cognitively impaired
people), Ring v. Arizona (insisting
on juries rather than judges setting
up attenuating conditions needed
for pronouncing the death penalty), and
Roper v. Simmons (withdrawing death penalty
for teenagers).[2]
Though the fundamental
constitutionality of capital punishment stands firm yet differs greatly across assorted states, doubts
remain on how well the death penalty
matches developing ethical
sensitivities and appreciation for human value. Those supporting alternatives propose that
suitable outcomes achieve preventive
and controlling goals without
posing lasting danger attached to ending lives. Assessment of the death penalty's legality
carries on, directed
by maturing customs,
factual insights, and readings of the
law.[3]
Apart from the constitution-related
disputes discussed earlier, there are
other vital topics surrounding capital
punishment that merit
consideration, specifically addressing proportionality, bias, credibility, and community
sentiment. Below is a summary of the main components relevant to each aspect:
Proportionality: Contention exists around whether
capital punishment fits the gravity
of the crime committed. Alternatives like lifetime incarceration without parole gain popularity
as plausible options, considering the chance of flawed convictions and changing norms concerning reasonable punishments. Compulsory death penalty protocols
face criticism for jeopardizing justice
by restricting decision-making authority entrusted to judges and juries alike.
Bias: Perpetuating partiality affecting the dispensing of the death penalty raises considerable
anxiety. Investigations expose links
connecting race, socioeconomic status, and
standard of legal assistance to variations
in exposure to capital punishment. Statistics exhibit a notable
presence of African
Americans on death row relative
to their demographic distribution. Social
stratification enables wealthy
suspects to engage top-tier lawyers, widening systemic gaps and challenging the constitutional soundness
of capital punishment.
Credibility: Debates
on the death penalty's constitutionality feed off uncertainties regarding the authenticity of testimonials from witnesses, forensic
results, and self-
confessions. Illustrative examples
of absolution after DNA analyses
lay bare vulnerabilities embedded in the criminal justice
mechanism, calling either for thoroughgoing enhancements or complete
dissolution of capital
punishment. Even though
supporters concede space for enhancement, they accentuate existing
safety nets developed
to preserve exactitude, honesty, and answerability, hence reducing risks involved.
Community Sentiment: While not immediately connected to legality, oscillating public opinion shapes conversations on capital punishment suitability. Current studies
indicate waning support
levels for the death penalty,
signaling a shift from accepting
it as a befitting response
to selected crimes.
Judiciaries observe evolutions in societal tolerance
limits – anchored in the Eighth Amendment
– when gauging permissibility of specific tactics.
Expect continual reductions in
approval ratings to trigger amplified
pressures on authorities to periodically review the wisdom behind retaining
capital punishment as a tenable
solution.
All
things considered, multilayered dynamics entwine dialogues
regarding capital punishment's compliance with the constitution, shedding
light on themes encompassing equilibrium, inclusiveness, confidence,
and collective judgment. Efforts to
resolve complications via regulatory tools
encounter constant critiques
sparking uncertainty about the longevity
of this approach. Exchanges between
both sides illuminate delicate navigation required
to harmoniously reconcile
conflicting priorities while upholding
bedrock constitutional concepts.[4]
INDIAN PENAL CODE
1960:
1.
One
of the crimes that have been connected to the death penalty is waging war against
India or attempting to do so. Waging war against a country is a crime that is specifically
defined in Section 121 of the IPC. Anyone who attempts
to wage war against India or is successful in waging war may be sentenced to
death.
2.
The
death penalty has also been associated with the abatement of mutiny. Abatement of
armed rebellion by an officer or member of the army, navy, or air force is specified
in Section 132 of the
3.
I.P.C
and accordingly, anyone who abets in the commission of a mutiny by an officer, soldier,
sailor, or pilot in the army, navy, or air force of the Government of India, so
that mutiny will be committed as a result of that complicity, can be punished by
death.
4.
Section 194 of the IPC has
been added to the list of crimes punishable by death. According to Section 194,
fabricating evidence is punishable by the death penalty if it is done to obtain
a capital conviction for a crime. A person who commits such a crime can face the
death penalty.
5.
Section 302 of the IPC imposes
the death penalty for a person who commits murder.
6.
Assisting
or supporting a minor’s suicide has been associated with the death penalty. Section 305 of the IPC deals
with punishment for assisting or supporting a person under the age of 18 or an intellectually
disabled person in committing suicide. As a result, anyone who commits this
crime can face the death penalty.
7.
Kidnapping
for ransom or other purposes is a serious offence punishable by death. Kidnapping
a person with the intent to cause them harm or death is specified under Section 364A of IPC. Any person
who commits this crime can face the death penalty.
8.
The
following offences were added to the IPC by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of
2013 for which a
court may impose the death penalty:
·
Section
376A
specifies the death penalty
for rape that results in death
or a permanent vegetative state of the victim.
Within the Indian Constitution,
Article 21 safeguards every citizen's Right to Life and Personal Liberty, constituting
a crucial foundation of the country's dedication to personal liberties and
equal treatment under the law. Although this core principle generally holds no
compromise outside the boundaries defined by legislation, notable exceptions and
restrictions apply - particularly in relation to capital punishment.
The
death penalty, entailing
the ultimate sacrifice of one's life, represents an
intensely disputed and emotive topic in India. Simultaneously invoking
respect for the sacred
nature of the Right to Life alongside appreciation
for the restorative power of law and
order maintenance, the Indian judiciary acknowledges the paradoxical essence
of capital punishment. Echoing this complex
relationship, the 35th
Law
Commission Report published
in 1967 reasoned that eliminating death penalty clauses
might prove detrimental to Indian society.
Given the substantial heterogeneity in educational attainment, cultural norms, and moral values intrinsic to India's extensive
geographical landscape,
capital punishment emerges as a vital
instrument ensuring social stability and security. Thus, striking a delicate balance
between individual rights and collective interests lies at the heart of the Indian judiciary's nuanced interpretation of
capital punishment within the
framework of Article 21. By serving
as a deterrent and ensuring justice
in select extreme cases, the provision acted as a powerful
tool to protect
citizens.
The
constitutional validity of capital punishment in India has been tested and debated
countless times through
legal proceedings under
Articles 14, 19, and 21. Among the
landmark cases dealing with the issue is Smt. Shashi
Nayar vs. Union of India
(1980), in which the petitioner argued that capital punishment violated
the constitutional right
to life guaranteed under
Article 21. Rejecting her plea, the Delhi High Court observed
that the death penalty served as a measure
of last resort, applied only in what are commonly
referred to as the 'rarest
of rare' cases. Furthermore, the court noted that
the procedural requirements laid down by the Criminal Procedure Code ensured
that no arbitrary actions took place during the trial, conviction, and eventual sentencing phases.
Other major legal developments in India reinforced the notion that capital
punishment should be limited to
exceptional situations. Jagmohan
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973)
dealt with the interpretation of the phrase 'life imprisonment,' ultimately holding that it implied
a natural lifespan
unless commuted by the
President or the Governor. Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra (1995) extended similar
protections to juveniles
by stating that no child younger than eighteen years old
could receive the death penalty
regardless of the nature of the crime.
While the Indian judiciary maintains that capital punishment plays
an irreplaceable role in the criminal justice
system, it continually grapples with identifying the criteria governing
its deployment. In Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980), the Supreme Court recognized
three broad categories requiring special
consideration when determining the necessity
of the death penalty: rarest of rare cases, exceptional circumstances, and extraordinary reasons. The ambiguity in
the definition of capital punishment grants judges and
magistrates liberty to base their decisions on personal beliefs
instead of concrete rules.
Skeptics raise doubts about the
compatibility of the death penalty with the
democratic and charitable principles laid down
in the Indian Constitution. Ironically, the
death penalty generates an atmosphere of concern and tacitly approves
unwarranted aggression by law enforcement officers. Prevalent corrupt
practices and deficient
legal aid result in flawed execution of the law,
predominantly impacting religious
minorities and downtrodden strata of society.
Champions of the death penalty
underscore its value in curbing
mounting criminal activity and uplifting societal
wealth. Imposing stern penalties ensures
calmness and establishes a suitable background for constructive change and betterment. Developments in forensic technologies and investigation mechanisms reinforce evidence credibility, ultimately improving trial integrity and fairness.
Finding common ground between
opposing expectations placed on
India's handling of capital
punishment obliges policy creators, intellectuals, and pressure groups
to carefully study domestic matters
and follow outstanding international examples. Adopting
this stance enables
India to gauge whether the death penalty
corresponds with its unique mixture of constitutional commitments and societal responsibilities.
Only then can India truly determine
whether capital punishment belongs
in the pantheon of constitutional rights and responsibilities.[6]
CASE LAWS:
Vinay Sharma v. Union of India (2020):
The
Vinay Sharma v. the Union of India
(2020) case, also famously known as the Nirbhaya
gang-rape case, had shocked the conscience of the whole country. The unfortunate
and brutal incident occurred in the chilled
weather of Delhi on a bus. The girl was brutally raped by six accused which also led to the death of the girl. An iron
rod was also inserted into her
private parts and she was thrown naked to the road. All the physical
and mental torture led to her death. When
the case was brought before the court, one
of the accused committed suicide in jail and
one of the accused was a juvenile so he was not sentenced to death. But the other four accused were sentenced to death and were also hanged in the year 2020. This judgement was concluded after analysing the aggravating and mitigating factors.
The aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating
factors if any. The death sentence was imposed
because life imprisonment seemed inadequate considering the relevant circumstances of the crime and the inhuman torture
committed on the victim which
brought about her death.[7]
Jagmohan singh vs state of up:
some six or seven years before the
present offence, one Shivraj Singh,
father of Jagbir Singh, a cousin of the appellant, was murdered. The
deceased Chhotey Singh was charged
for that murder but was eventually acquitted
by the High Court. As a result of that murder,
there was ill-feeling between Chhotey Singh, on the one hand, and the appellant and Jagbir Singh,
on the other. Both of them were minors at the time of the murder of Shivraj Singh.
But by now they had grown up and it is plain from the evidence that Chhotey Singh's murder was the result
of this ill-feeling. Chhotey Singh was murdered
on September 10, 1969 at about 5.00 P.M. A day earlier, there was a quarrel between
Jagmohan Singh and Jagbir Singh,
on the one hand, and Chhotey Singh, on the other, on the
question of a right to irrigate their fields. However, the dispute was settled by
persons who reached the spot at the
time and nothing untoward happened.
Next day, however, the appellant
armed with a country made pistol and Jagbir Singh armed with a lathi concealed
themselves in a bajra field and emerged from the same as Chhotey Singh passed by to go to his field for fetching
fodder. The appellant asked Chhotey Singh to stop so that the matter
between them could
be settled once for all.
Naturally Chhotey Singh tried to
run away but he was chased by the appellant
and shot in the back.
Chhotey Singh fell down after running some distance
and died. That is how the murder was committed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions
Judge held that the appellant deserved the extreme penalty.
The High Court, while confirming the death sentence,
observed that there were no extenuating
circumstances and the sentence of death awarded
to the appellant was just and proper. The question is whether this
Court should interfere with the
sentence. Lastly it was contended
by Mr. Garg that under
Article 21 of the Constitution no person shall be deprived
of his life except according to procedure established by law and, in his submission.[8]
SHABNAM VS UNION OF INDIA:
Petitioner Shabnam Hashmi, a renowned Indian social worker and human rights champion, submitted a plea before the Supreme
Court of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Ms. Hashmi, a practicing
Muslim, sought recognition of the right to adopt and be adopted
as a fundamental right under Part III of the Indian Constitution. She filed the petition on
behalf of herself and a young girl
she had taken in and cared for since
childhood.Ms. Hashmi stressed
that the Juvenile Justice
Act of 2000, a secular
law, allows anyone, regardless of their
faith, to adopt a child. Her submission requested
that the Court advise states and union territories bound by the act to implement Section
41 and follow Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) guidelines strictly.
She proposed twofold
prayers to the Honourable Court:
Declaring the right to adopt a child as a fundamental right under Part
III of the Indian Constitution.
Directing the Union Government to create non-compulsory guidelines facilitating
adoption for individuals, transcending barriers of caste, creed, and religion. Also,
she urged the creation of a supplementary law centered on child welfare, giving
scant importance to factors like religion.
In Shabnam Hashmi vs. Union of India,
the bench wholeheartedly agreed that adoption is a fundamental right applicable to all citizens, immune to distinctions based on caste,
creed, or belief.
Referencing the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act of 2000, the bench maintained adoption opportunities unaffected by religious or caste constraints.Despite the absence
of robust proof offered by the petitioner, the Court honoured
her prayer and declared
the right to adopt a child as falling within
the ambit of Part III of the Indian Constitution, classified as a Fundamental Right.
Clarifying further, the bench
explained that Islamic law doesn't officially recognize adoption,
but neither does it prohibit
childless couples from
assuming parental duties for a child's emotional
and material sustenance. Once a couple adopts, they become the child's lawful
parents, superseding the role of traditional guardianship. Recognising the spirit
of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000, the bench added that adoption
rights apply equally to every couple, independent of
their religion, gender, caste, or
creed, affirming every child's
right to family
and every adult's
right to care for a child.[9]
SURENDRA KOLI VS STATE OF UP:
Multiple children went missing
in and around Noida Sector
31 and Nithari village, Gautam Buddha Nagar, starting from 2005. Complaints were filed by relatives, including
Anil Haldar regarding the disappearance of his daughter, Rimpa Haldar, and Nand Lal, father of another missing girl named Payal. Following these incidents, the Chief
Judicial Magistrate of Gautam Buddha Nagar ordered
the registration of an FIR (No. 838 of 2006) under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding Payal's
disappearance.
Initially, Ramesh Bharti, CO City
Gautam Buddha Nagar, investigated the case, but Dinesh Yadav, Deputy SP (now PW 35), took over the investigation based on an order from the Superintendent of Police, G.B. Nagar. During
the course of the investigation, Surendra Koli (A-2) was arrested
on December 29, 2006, and admitted to killing Payal and disposing
of her body in the enclosed
gallery at the back of house no. D- 5, Sector 31, Noida. A-2 then led the investigation
team to recover 15 skulls and bones
from the location, as well as a knife from a bathroom tank and other bones from a nearby
drain.
Following these discoveries, Smt. Dolie Haldar, mother of Rimpa Haldar, visited
the police station on January
3, 2007, for identification purposes.
She recognized clothes belonging to her daughter, which
led to the filing of another FIR
(No. 3 of 2007) against Moninder
Singh Pandher (A-1) and Surendra Koli
(A-2) for kidnapping, raping, and murdering
Rimpa Haldar. The Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the case, conducting a detailed investigation and submitting a charge sheet against
Surendra Koli alone, acquitting Moninder
Singh Pandher due to
insufficient evidence linking him to
the crime. Both A-1 and A-2 denied the charges
and claimed innocence. However,
no witnesses supported
A-2's alibi. The trial
court eventually found both accused guilty and sentenced them to death.
Unsatisfied with the verdict, both
appellants filed appeals.
Moninder Singh Pandher's
counsel argued that there was no legally
admissible evidence against him and that his confession should not be used against him. They also questioned the legality of summoning
him under section 319 Cr.P.C. Meanwhile, Surendra
Koli's counsel disputed
the completeness of the circumstantial evidence and challenged the admissibility of his own confession. The counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, supported
the trial court's
decision. In response to these arguments, the court examined the oral and documentary evidence on record, focusing
on the statements and conduct
of key witnesses, medical records,
and other physical
evidence. The court
thoroughly analyzed each piece of information,
weighing the credibility of each claim,
bSurender Koli vs State of UP is a series
of cases related to the serial killings and sexual
assaults that took place in Nithari, Uttar Pradesh, India, between
2005 and 2006.
Various judgments were passed by the Trial Court, the Allahabad High Court, and finally, the Supreme Court of India. Here's a summary of some of the key judgments in the case:
Trial Court Judgment (Special
Fast Track Court, Ghaziabad):S urender Koli was
found guilty on five counts of
murder, attempted murder,
and concealment of evidence.
He was sentenced to death on March 21, 2009, for each count of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial
court also fined him Rs. 2,000 for
attempting to murder Hemraj's
wife, and Rs. 1,000 for destroying evidence. Allahabad High Court Judgment (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench): Surender Koli challenged
the death penalty awarded by the trial
court. The division bench of the High Court
dismissed his appeal on October 11, 2010,
upholding the death penalty. Koli then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme
Court of India against the High Court's
judgment.
Supreme Court Judgment (Supreme Court of
India, New Delhi):
Surender Koli filed a writ petition (CRL.) No.
162
of 2011 in the Supreme
Court, challenging the death penalty
awarded by the trial
court and upheld by the Allahabad High Court.The
Supreme Court appointed senior advocate
K.T.S. Tulsi as Amicus Curiae to assist
the court in the matter. The Supreme Court, on May 11, 2011, stayed the death warrant issued by the trial court for executing
Surender Koli.
The apex court conducted hearings on
the matter, going through voluminous documents, witness testimonies, and other evidence presented by both the
prosecution and the defense.
Finally, on July 12, 2019, the Supreme
Court rejected Surender
Koli's appeal and upheld the
death penalty awarded by the trial
court and upheld by the High Court.
These judgments collectively confirm
the guilt of Surender Koli and
uphold the death penalty awarded
by the trial court and upheld by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, in its final judgment,
deemed the crimes committed by Surender Koli as "rarest of rare" cases, deserving of the highest
punishment under Indian law. efore delivering its final verdict.[10]
CONCLUSION:
The debate on capital punishment in
India remains a complex and polarizing issue. While
there is a strong emphasis on the right to life and personal
liberty as outlined
in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the application of
capital punishment is viewed differently
based on the type of crime and its perceived impact on society. Historically, Indian courts have relied on the
"rarest of rare" doctrine
to decide whether
capital punishment is warranted. This doctrine leaves
room for judicial
discretion, which can result in inconsistent judgments
and application of the death
penalty. Arguments against
capital punishment generally focus on the lack of concrete
evidence showing its deterrent effect,
the possibility of errors in the criminal justice system leading to
wrongful convictions, and the potential
for discrimination based on factors
such as economic status, caste, and religion.
On
the other hand, proponents of capital punishment argue that it serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes,
provides justice to victims
and their families, and instills public confidence in the criminal
justice system. Over the past
few decades, there has been a gradual decline
in the number of cases attracting the death penalty
in India. The Supreme
Court has increasingly favored life imprisonment over capital punishment, particularly in cases where there are mitigating circumstances or where the offender
shows signs of rehabilitation.
The debate on capital punishment in India continues
to evolve, with various stakeholders presenting compelling arguments for and against its use. While
the practice remains constitutional, its application is carefully restricted to the "rarest of rare" cases,
reflecting the country's commitment
to upholding human rights and the sanctity
of life. The conversation will likely persist
as the judiciary, legislature, and society
strive to balance the need for justice with compassion and forgiveness.[11]
[1]
Death Penalty
Information Center, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and- research/history-of-the-death-penalty/early-history-
of-the-death-penalty (last visited 17 March, 2024).
[11] https://www.britannica.com/topic/capital-
punishment
Article Information
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW (2022-2027) BY: SURESH KANNA P
Authors: SURESH KANNA P
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/03/24
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 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.