How to Understand Top Risks and Reasons for Validating Death Sentence in India

It is an established fact that laws are always subject to change, and yes, it depends on the peculiarities of each case as considered by the courts. So, ultimately, it becomes really important to know how well-established death sentence decisions in India can work to your advantage if a case is pending.

Broad Principles for Imposing Capital Punishment and Execution

In Union of India v Devendra Nath Rai (2006) 2 SCC 243, the Supreme Court culled out the broad principles relating to the infliction of the death penalty as follows:

• When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
• When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity of meanness eg. murder by hired assassin for money or reward, cold blooded murder for  gains of a person vis-à-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust or murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland.
• When the murder of a member of the Scheduled Case or minority community etc is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath or in cases of bride burning or dowry deaths where the murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.
• When the crime is enormous in proportion, such as multiple murders, all or almost all members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community or locality are committed.
• When the victim of murder is an innocent child or a helpless woman or old or infirm person of a person vis-à-vis whom the murderer is in a position to dominate or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community.

Supreme Court: Delay Defeats Justice in Death Sentence Execution

In Jagdish v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 9 SCC 495, the judges stated that they are largely unaware as to the reasons that enable a Government to decide in favor of granting the pardon or deciding against it. They observed that the decision of the Government to grant pardon or not grant it should be based on sound legal principles relating to the case. They further stated that human beings are not chattels and should not be used as pawns to further some larger political or government policy.

Other highly thought provoking observations by the judges in this case are as follows:

• The very terminology used to identify such prisoners – death row inmates, or condemned prisoners – tend to remind them of their plight every moment of every day.
• The condemned prisoner and his suffering relatives have a very pertinent right in insisting that a decision in the matter be taken by the Government within a reasonable time, failing which the power should be exercised in favor of the prisoner.

In this same case, the judges relied on several excerpts of the decision delivered by the Supreme Court in Sher Singh v State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 344, which is as follows:

“So long as life lasts, so long shall it be the duty and endeavor of this Court to give to the provisions of our Constitution a meaning which will prevent human suffering and degradation. Therefore, Article 21 is as much relevant at the stage of execution of the death sentence as it is in the interregnum between the imposition of that sentence and its execution.”