Capital Punishment in India: Justice or an Outdated Practice?

Perspectives on death row sentencing in Indian

Introduction

Death sentence, formally known as capital punishment is the highest form of punishment that can be given to a criminal. Arguably, the most effective deterrent to stop criminals from committing crimes again is this punishment.

Throughout Human history, this penalty has been administered by a variety of means, including lethal injection, firing squad, hangman’s axe, hanging, guillotine, burning at stake, and the wheel. “There are two ways to carry out a death sentence in India: being shot to death and being neck till death.” The punishment is administered in compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 354(5). 1973   Guidelines for handling a prisoner who has been given a death sentence are provided by several management clauses in Indian laws. This entails keeping them safe and away from other prisoners, ensuring that they have nothing that could be used as a weapon, etc. There are extremely explicit instructions that officers must follow; everything from the moment of death to the search of suspects is covered in detail.  The total number of people who have received this punishment in India is disputed, but a study by the National Law University, Delhi compiled a list of persons executed in India since 1947 and found that at least 752 individuals had been executed after independence.

Legal Framework and the “Rarest of the Rare” Doctrine

Moving on to the question of exactly who receives this punishment. There is no one specific crime that results in guaranteed Capital Punishment, but according to the Indian Penal Code, a judge has the power to give capital punishment in cases like Murder, Rape, Mutiny, etc. However not every crime that carries the option of capital punishment qualifies for it, the option of giving this punishment is left to strict judicial scrutiny.

To provide judges with a framework for awarding the death penalty and limit judicial discretion The doctrine of “rarest of the rare case” is used. This doctrine, established in the 5-bench landmark case Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab although did not provide a clear-cut rule for applying this theory, it did provide two key considerations: 1. the nature of the offense and 2. its gravity. The court made it clear that each case will be decided based on its facts, the severity of the crime, the offense’s consequences, the offender’s prior actions, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The case of Machhi Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab further described this decision by stating that the crime committed must be of such a heinous and revolting nature that it shocks the collective conscience of society. The offender must suffer the same fate as their victim, ensuring justice for the gravity of the crime. Serves as a strong warning, instilling fear in society and discouraging others from committing similar acts.

Human Rights Perspective: The Case for Abolition

The death penalty system in India creates extensive moral and ethical dilemmas that require immediate intervention together with legislative changes. According to human rights activists, the death penalty breaches the core human right of living because this principle traces back to the Indian tradition of ahimsa (non-violence). At the same time, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN General Assembly, 1948) affirms this principle.

Capital punishment stands as the strongest opposition for three primary reasons: its permanent severity and the defective framework of Indian justice systems. The Death Penalty India Report (National Law University Delhi, 2016) demonstrated that prisoners on death row consist mainly of 74.1% who face economic struggles while lacking access to proper legal assistance. Three wrongful death sentence inmates were freed in 2023 from Maharashtra detention following their sixteen-year imprisonment (Maharashtra v. Ankush Maruti Shinde, 2023)1

The international trend shows that death penalty abolition is increasing because two-thirds of the world’s nations already eliminated this practice (Amnesty International, 2023). Death penalty continues to exist in India but the Supreme Court has initiated a closer evaluation of death penalty cases through multiple recent decisions. The landmark Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) established the “rarest of rare” standard that has received additional enhancement through Manoj & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022). The court in the State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) stressed that death penalty assessment must show reform progress before sentencing death

Human rights advocates have put forward vital reforms that tackle instant and large-scale problems:

• DNA testing along with enhanced forensic analysis which carries a ₹100 crore yearly cost leads to preventing incorrect court decisions (Law Commission Report, 2022)3
• A death penalty review commission operating independently should be established as a replica of the UK Criminal Cases Review Commission in structure.
• The Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) decision should be used to establish mandatory mental health evaluations. Union of India (2014)
• New sentencing protocols should be established to block irregular judgment procedures.

International frameworks provide clear guidance. The United Nations Human Rights Committee (2018) specified that extended isolation and lack of certainty experienced by death row prisoners in India might qualify as cruel treatment. Proof of successful death penalty abolition comes from either Nepal (which abolished it in 1997) or Sri Lanka which enacted a moratorium in 1976.

The retention of capital punishment in India stands in opposition to India’s human rights obligations internationally as well as its national constitutional principles. The Supreme Court conducts reporting that demonstrates death penalty bias in state-based judgments through the systematic distribution of sentences favouring lower-income defendants (Supreme Court Annual Report, 2023)4 Project 39A research reveals that 7.5

Systemic change can begin only after recognizing these fundamental problems and implementing proven institutional reforms. International systems, especially the European model of abolition, provide guidelines for Indian justice reforms that merge public protection with human rights defence.

The Victim’s Family’s Perspective

The main reason behind the demand for Capital Punishment i.e. Death Penalty by the families of victims is to seek Justice for the victim. As the Death penalty is sentenced in cases which are heinous, the demand for it becomes obvious. From the perspective of Human Rights, it is an inhumane act, but for the victims and their families, it acts as closure. The capital punishment is awarded for brutal crimes such as aggravated rape, murder, and child murder. Cases like the rape of women, young girls, even 2-3 year-old children, and murders committed by enemies or even loved ones shatter society. It not only affects the victim but also the whole of society. Focusing on rape cases, it creates an uncomfortable, fearful environment for females. One’s family has been shattered by such acts. Women lose their confidence and suffer from worsened mental and physical health. At such a point, questions arise: What can we do to ease their bruises? Does compensation money help rehabilitate them? Does the person who destroyed someone’s life deserve to live freely? The families of victims face social, emotional, and financial crises. Societal pressure, defamation, emotional breakdowns, the legal process, and waiting for justice cause much trouble. Here, the demand for death is contrasted with forgiveness. The “eye for an eye” theory justifies the death penalty. However, there remains a debate if the death penalty brings closure or perpetuates the cycle of pain. In the recent case of R G Kar Medical College, Kolkata, (2024) the victim’s family has submitted in court that they are not in favour of capital punishment. According to them they have lost their daughter, they don’t want someone else to die. Contrary to this, in the Nirbhaya Gang Rape and Murder case (Dec 2021), the victim’s parents were relived on the day of the execution of the four convicts (Dec 2021). “Justice delayed, but not denied”, says Nirbhaya’s mother. Emotionally, the cycle persists regardless of the sentence. However, the death of the convict can provide a sense of justice and relief for the family.

The Prisoner on Death row or their family’s perspective

“When anyone is tortured like I was, it no longer matters whether you did or not, you will agree to anything to make the torture stop,” says Inder; “Though it is the convict who is sentenced to death, it is his family that dies every day,” says Shivmani; “Death Penalty is like a ghost. It haunts a person, it kills them from within,” says Maahir. These are the experiences of prisoners on death row. The average time period between arrest and sentencing is 5 years; 21 years and 5 months is the average time for a mercy plea to be heard. These years are full of stress, frustration, uncertainty, torture, fear, and many more emotions for the prisoner.

Capital punishment is much more than just execution. The convicts endure custodial torture from inmates. Once their sentence is confirmed, they are separated from regular prison populations, disturbing them psychologically and physically. Prisoners are mostly kept in solitary confinement, and prohibited from working or participating in activities. The presence of gallows in 30 out of 67 prisons in India creates psychological pressure.

Before 2010, sanitary conditions were poor; prisoners didn’t have toilets and had steel buckets that were not emptied daily. Poor-quality meals and sleep deprivation were common. There is an argument of “rehabilitation over execution” in society, where rehabilitation is believed to be the real closure as it transforms a criminal into a sober individual. While this is contrasted by another thought that believes execution as justice.

The convict’s family faces societal pressure, isolation, and emotional pain, much like the victim’s family. Both lose a member in a cruel manner. The death penalty is cruel for the convict, but their crimes are cruel. If rehabilitation works, it can be the best alternative. If not, it’s a failure of institutions and humanity.

• Our opinion regarding Capital Punishment

Even today, capital punishment remains a significantly controversial topic within the boundaries of India. This raises ethical, legal as well as social issues, which makes it a very sensitive aspect in governance. The doctrine of “rarest of the rare” that was introduced in the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) was aimed at reducing unethical and arbitrary sentencing practices. In practice, however, it is often too vague which can and does lead to inconsistency. Within the ambit of Indian Law, the death penalty is reserved for heinous crimes such as murder, terrorism or certain cases of rape. However, such systemic abuse of power heightens the already existing fears of social and economic bias along with inadequate legal representation leading to unjust sentences. The more pressing issue is: Are there cases where the death penalty can be justified, or does it amount to a classic case of punitive justice that should rather be replaced by a form of justice that is more merciful and compassionate in nature?

• Human Rights & Ethical Concerns

The most frequent argument against the death penalty is that it undermines the right to life well defined in the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The act of state-sponsored execution goes against the principle of Ahimsa (non-violence) which is central to Indian philosophy. There are several countries that have abolished the death penalty such as our close neighbours, Sri Lanka & Nepal.

• Socio Economic Disparities

The death penalty affects the minority groups the most. The Death Penalty India Report (2016) shows that 74% of the inmates on death row come from poor families who are often unable to afford proper legal support. Research done by Project 39A shows there is a certain degree of bias in lower income defendants being tried as well as the psychological suffering caused by protracted trials. Three people who were wrongfully sentenced in the case of Ankush Maruti Shinde v State of Maharashtra (2023) were eventually acquitted.

• Effects on families

The death penalty affects not only the executed person, but also their family members, who face social ostracism, economic hardship, and psychological trauma. While the family members of the victim may regard his execution as justifiable, relatives of the convicted suffer from prolonged uncertainty and anguish, which raises moral questions about the notion of justice, which in essence, gives rise to even more victims.

• Moving Towards Reform Instead of Retribution?

Deterrence is one of the commonly cited justifications for capital punishment, yet it is proven that it does not change the frequency of the crime. Suggested reforms include establishing an Independent Death Penalty Review Commission, implementing mandatory mental health assessments, enhancing forensic methods, and considering life sentences without parole as a viable alternative.

• Conclusion

India stands at a crossroads. While public sentiment largely supports the death penalty, gradual reforms inspired by global trends can lead to a justice system that balances deterrence with rehabilitation. The future may lie in a legal approach that upholds justice while allowing room for reform and second chances.

Bibliography

1. LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, & Ghatate, N. M. (2021). CONSULTATION PAPER ON MODE OF EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCE AND INCIDENTAL MATTERS.

2. Section 354(5), Code of Criminal Procedure,

3. Project 39A, National Law University, Delhi.

4. Indian Penal Code,1860

5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 24

6. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470
7. Supreme Court of India. (2019). Ankush Maruti Shinde & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1397-1399. [This case actually occurred in 2019, not 2023]

8. Supreme Court of India. (2022). Manoj & Ors. vs State of Madhya Pradesh, Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 245-249.

9. Law Commission of India. (2015). Report No. 262: The Death Penalty. [Note: The 2022 cost estimate mentioned should be removed as there isn’t a verified Law Commission report from 2022 on this topic]

10. Project 39A, National Law University Delhi. (2022). Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report 2022.

11. Project 39A. (2021). Death Penalty Sentencing in Trial Courts: Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra (2000-2015).
12. https: indianexpress.com

13. https: www.thehindu.com

14. https://www.project39a.com/dpir

15. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/06/india-death-row-prisoners-horrific-conditions-study

16. Section 30 (2), The Prisons Act, 1894

17. https://www.prison-insider.com/en/articles/inde-conditions-de-detention-des-condamnes-a-mort