Is death sentence justified?

Death sentence has always been used as an effective punishment for murderers and dangerous offenders. It has both deterrent and preventive effect.

The justification advanced in support of capital punishment is that it is lawful to forfeit the life of a person who takes away another's life.

The history of punishment in England reveals that death sentence has always occupied a very important place during ancient and medieval periods. The abolitionists often argue that death penalty brutalises human nature and cheapens human life. Thus it vitiates the humanitarian sentiment concerning sacredness of human life. 

Following reasons are stated for appropriatness of Death sentence-

• A human being, by nature, is frightened with death: No offender wishes capital punishment. This is the reason, that death sentence is most effective and proved helpful in deterrent of crimes.
• Death sentence is different from life imprisonment and other punishments. This difference is due to its quality. By death sentence, the existence of offender ceases forever.
• Keeping dangerous offender in jail for lifelong is extremely inconvenient and uneconomic.

Under 35th report of Law Commission of India the opinion of Judges, Parliament members, legislative members, Jurists, Advocates and police administration dath sentence was considered as having an adequate and satisfactory deterrent effect.

Who are in favour of abolition of capital punishment; states that-

• Death sentence is non-changeable. Once a death sentence is executed, the offender ceases forever. In this situation, if death sentence has been awarded to a non-defaulter person by mistake, then it will be proved unjustified.
• There are many apprehensions about the effect of death sentence. In spite of death sentence in vague, offences like murder have not been decreased.
• In the changed scenario, the main object of punishment is to reform and rehabilitation so there is no appropriatness of death sentence.
• Death sentence is too brutal, inhuman and barbariac form of punishment irrespective of its method of execution.

Even after these facts, death sentence still remains in vague in many countries till today.

POSITION OF INDIAN POSTION

The Indian Penal Law in India provided death penalty in a quite good number of offences. The Mahabharath contains references about the offender being punished with the sentence of amputation by bits which was called Vadhadand.

The Moghul rulers in India also made use of death penalty to eliminate unwanted criminals with the British rule in India, these unhuman and barbaric methods of execution were abolished and death by hanging remained the only mode of inflicting death sentence.

The framer of Indian Penal Code, Sir James Stephen favoured the retention of capital punishment for certain specified offences which are quoted below-

1. Waging war against Government (Sec. 121 IPC)
2. Abetment of Mutiny (Sec. 132 IPC)
3. Fabrication of false evidence leading to one's conviction for capital offence (Sec. 194 IPC)
4. Murder (Sec. 302 IPC)
5. Murder by a convict undergoing a term of life imprisonment (Sec. 303 IPC)
6. Abetment of suicide of child or insane person (Sec. 305 IPC)
7. Attempt to murder by a life convict (Sec. 307 IPC)
8. Dacoity with murder (Sec. 396 IPC)

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that the court, must reccord 'special resons' justifying the award of death sentence and state as to why an alternative sentences of imprisonment of life would not meet the ends of justice in the particular case. Sec. 235(2) casts a further statutory duty upon court to hear the accused on the point of sentence.

That apart, the Constitution of India also empowers the President & Governors of State to grant pardon to the condemned prisoner in appropriate cases. (Article 72 & Article 161).

It is significant to note that controversy raised in this regard in Manavati's case has been settled once for all by the Supreme Court in its decision in Sarat Chandra V. Khagendra Nath which affirmed the principle that sentencing powers of judiciary and executive are readily distinguishable.

A year later, the Supreme court settled the controversy regarding the choice between death penalty and life-imprisonment in Bacchan Singh's case. The court over-ruled its earlier decision in Rajendra Prasad case & emphasized the need for liberal construction of mitigating factors, in the area of death penalty so that dignity of human life is maintained. In its view death sentence should be awarded in rarest of rare cases when alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.

In the case of 'Pandu Rang v. State of Hyderabad it has been said by the Supreme Court that death sentence should be awarded in essential and crime situations.

In the case of 'Subhash Ramkumar v State of Mahrashtra' it has been held by the Supreme court that for awarding the death penalty, the case must be rarest of rare one.

The Supreme Court while allowing commutation of the death sentences to that of lifelong imprisonment of the accused in the case of 'Rajendra Prasad V. State of UP', has said that where the murder is deliberate, premeditated, cold-blooded and gruesome and there are no extenuating circumstances, the offender must be sentenced to death. However, in this case life-imprisonment has been allowed in view the changing ideological, constitutional, criminological and cultural trends in India and abroad.

In the case of 'Ediga anamma V. State of AP', the Supreme court while having humanitarian view upon the social, personal and family circumstances of the accused has commuted death sentence to that of imprisonment of life. This was the case of murder in love matters. J. Krishna Iyer said that the events of honour killing in cases of lovers in villages are often going on.

It will not be justifiable to award death sentence for the murder of Lover's wife under sex sentiments. Imprisonment for life is adequate in such cases.

These are other cases also where the death sentence commuted in imprisonment for life and it has been held that-

• Death sentence should be awarded in rarest of rare case.
• Death sentence is justifiable in brutal and inhuman offences; and
• The nature, condition of offender and changed circumstances should be taken into consideration while awarding the death sentence.

In the case of 'Ajit singh Harman singh Gujarat V. State of Mahrashtra', the Supreme court has stated to the extent that abolition of death penalty is domain of legislature and judiciary.

EFFECT OF DELAY IN ENFORCEMENT OF DEATH SENTENCE

The death sentence is a special kind of punishment. The main object of it, to remove the offender from the society forever and to diffuse fear in other person so they may not aspire/tend towards offence. The enforcement of this punishment is expected immediately. Delay in its enforcement ends its importance. This has also been violation of Article 21 of the constitution because the offender remains frightened with death due to delay in enforcement.

In the case of Sher singh V. State of Punjab it has been held by the Supreme Court that to keep pending the corroborated death sentence is not justified.

In the case of Teiveni Ben V. State of Gujarat it has been held by the Supreme Court that delay in enforcement of death sentence by two years is too much.