Capital Punishment

"A society which felt neither anger nor indignation at outrageous conduct would hardly enjoy an effective system of law" - Salmond.

Unlike animals, human beings in the course of time have upgraded their social standards in which they reside and where they can claim to be proud residents of a protective society, where they have a prerogative claim to basic civic, political, economic and legal rights, where state watches and prevails over crime and they are also the recipients of persistent and unwavering justice, which being stringent ensures that any slight deviation from time-honoured and accepted behaviour by any citizen brings them under the austere eyes of the law which then helps in preserving the fabric of the society and the efficiency of its social network which de facto is one core reason why we (should) have capital punishment as a tool and aid to be used as a deterrent; it has been universally supported by the great political thinkers like John Locke who propounded his concept of capital punishment containing elements of retributive and utilitarian theory, where he contends that a person forfeits his rights for the commission of even minor crimes and once such rights are forfeited, punishments can be rightly pronounced on them as they have made a breach to the social contract to which they had agreed and the remedy is punishment to the wrong doer which in itself is an endeavour to darn the damage done to the social fabric and by the same raison d'être capital punishment too is justified for the following reasons:

(1) from the retributive side, criminals deserve punishment, and,
(2) from the utilitarian side,

Punishment is needed to protect our society by deterring crime through such examples, thus society may punish the criminal in any way it deems necessary which may include taking away his life so as to set an example for other would-be criminals and is further justified for the reason that the acts which are so vile and destructive for society and dignity of the people

Invalidating the right of the perpetrator to membership and even to life, because preciousness of life in a moral community must be so highly honoured that those who do not honour the lives of others make null and void their own right to membership, which is why in a community based on love and ideals when made to face the music of hostility and having to deal with people who have committed brutal acts of terror, violence and murder, face a dilemma by the way of the set of ideals the community propagates; it cannot imbibe the philosophy of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life" but would be forced to act for the safety of the members of the community from further destruction and would have to treat the perpetrators who had shown no respect for life to be restrained, permanently if necessary, so that they could not further endanger other members of the community which would leave a sense of satisfaction and happiness to all with whom the wrong has been done or relatives of the victims and to society as such, if he who breaks the law is not punished then he who obeys it is cheated which can also be rightly corroborated from the utilitarian and retributive perspective of capital punishment.

For example as per the utilitarian perspective, capital punishment when pronounced prevents the criminal from repeating his crime or deters crime by discouraging would-be offenders and both of these contribute to a greater balance of happiness in society and according to the retributive notion of capital punishment criminals deserve punishment, and punishment should be equal to the harm done and for determining what counts as "punishment equal to harm," theorists further distinguish between two types of retributive punishment which are lex talionis where retribution involves punishment in kind and is commonly expressed in the expression "an eye for an eye", and lex salica, where retribution involves punishment through compensation, and the harm inflicted can be repaired by payment or atonement and historically.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India states “No person shall be deprived of his life except according to the due process established by law.” There is a great possibility that the due process established might not be followed as per the prescribed law.

In Makhan Singh Tariska v. State of Punjab, “Before a person is deprived of his life the procedure established by law must be strictly followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected.”

In Rajendra Prasad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer was of the opinion of not imposing death penalty. He quoted Benjamin N Cardozo from The Nature of the Judicial Process by saying, ” If judges have woefully misinterpreted the mores of their day, or if the mores of their day are no longer those of ours, they ought not to tie, in helpless submission, the hands of their successors.” Hon’ble Judges have to shed their traditional way of looking at death penalty and take a lighter stand towards the convict.

They should break the usual practice and speak out the pulse of human life and dignity. They should not be helpless and submit themselves to this horrendous practice. They should set a benchmark to human life and its existence with dignity. He quotes Lok Nayak Jayprakash Narayan by saying, “To my mind, it is ultimately a question of respect for life and human approach to those who commit grievous hurts to others. Death sentence is no remedy for such crimes. A more humane and constructive remedy is to remove the culprit concerned from the normal milieu and treat him as a mental case. I am sure a large proportion of the murderers could be weaned away from their path and their mental condition sufficiently improved to become useful citizens, in a minority of cases, this may not be possible. They may be kept in prison houses till they die a natural death. This may cast a heavier economic burden on society than hanging. But I have no doubt that a humane treatment even of a murderer will enhance man's dignity and make society more human.”

In an American case, Field J. in Munn vs. Illinois stated “By the term ‘life’ we mean something more than survival and not merely animal existence. It also includes the use of the limbs and faculties of the body which the body communicates with the outer world.”. Life is the most precious thing that a person can have, absence of which questions the very existence of mankind. The Hon’ble Supreme Court should keep in mind the best interest of the society while awarding death sentence to the accused. This Hon’ble Court should take into consideration whether the established law has been followed in black and white.

In a case of K. Venkatesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where the Andhra Pradesh High Court did not give the patient Right to Die or Euthanasia. When a person can be denied his Right to Die by a Court then a how Court take away the life of the person? As Mahatma Gandhi quotes, “Destruction of individuals can never be a virtuous act. The evil doers cannot be done to death. Today there is a movement aloof to abolish death penalty. The prisons need to be converted into hospitals as if they are persons suffering from a disease.”

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer quotes, “The spirit of a man is at the root of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, personal liberty makes for the worth of the human person.”

Crime breeds crime and murder breeds murder. The Hon’ble Courts of this country should keep in mind the best interest of the society while passing any horrendous sentence like death penalty. The Hon’ble Court must keep in mind the morale of the society while passing any judgement like death penalty.

As Baccaria quotes, ”All Capital Punishments are wrong in itself and unjust. There are two ways in which death sentence could be justified. Firstly, if such a sentence would prevent a revolution against a popularly established government. Secondly, if the execution was the only way to deter others from committing a crime.” The Court should definitely take into account the pulse of the society while giving the sentence of death penalty. It should take into consideration whether the judgement passed would prevent others from committing the crimes. Death Penalty is not the answer for all the crimes. We need a humane solution for this.

Death Sentence is the most horrendous and grotesque act. It would be better for this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of the welfare of the society, to find a more humane solution to death penalty. Legal vengeance shall not be there towards the accused. As Justice V.Krishna Iyer asserts in accordance with Stockholm Declaration of Amnesty International, “Death Penalty is not only physically but psychologically brutal, referring to the lengthy period between sentencing and execution as ‘lingering death’.” He asserts that by application of death penalty, it contradicts the very sanctity of human life and human society. He also forcefully asserts that all the civilized countries have abolished death penalty as a symbol of their respect to human life, and expresses deep anguish that we in our country still cling to it with little regard to the basic rights of man.

In a landmark judgement passed by Hon’ble Justice P.N. Bhagwati, in Bachan Singh Anr. v. State of Punjab, he says and quotes George Bernard Shaw “Criminals do not die by the hands of the law”. They die by the hands of other men. Assassination on the scaffold is the worst form of assassination because there it is invested with the approval of the society. Murder and capital punishment are not opposites that cancel one another but similars that breed their kind."

In Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer took a lighter stand while evaluating death penalty. He recognised the need to abolish death penalty. He also envisaged that it as India progresses in this 21^st century there would be a need to give importance to human life and dignity and also abolish death penalty. He also quoted the Ontario court of appeal saying that death sentence is irrevocable, grave and serious. He also marks death penalty as ‘brutal’ and ‘horrendous’. It is a cold-blooded judicial murder.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allauddin v. State of Bihar gave some guidelines which are essential to impose death penalty. They are

a) The circumstances of the ‘offender’ need to be considered apart from the circumstances of the ‘crime’.

b) Life imprisonment is a rule and death penalty is an exception. Death penalty can be imposed only when life imprisonment is all together an inadequate punishment.

c) The Court should also consider the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case and full weightage has to be given to the mitigating cicumstances or factors.

The punishment for all murders is not death penalty. The Hon’ble Justice Sarkaria in Maneka Gandhi’s case says that Section 302 of Indian Penal Code does not violate the provisions of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also says that the Founding Fathers of Indian Constitution considered death sentence for murder or the prescribed traditional mode of its execution as a degrading punishment which would ‘defile the dignity of the individual’ within the contemplation of the preamble to the Constitution. The Hon’ble Judges might be of the view that by awarding the death sentence to the accused they have given justice to the aggrieved party. But this would have feeble affect on the crime rate. Death Sentence is similar to the murder of a person. It is, in short, a judicial murder. This is a judicial assassination of the accused.

The international fraternity is making its own strenuous efforts to abolish death penalty and create a more humane society and make life worth living for the convicted. For instance, Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “No shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, or to degrading treatment or punishment.” It is enshrined in the very declaration on human rights that death penalty need to be abolished as it is a torturous, cruel and gruesome act. The imposition of death penalty degrades the very existence of human life.

Article 6(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that adopted on 16^th December 1966 and came into force on 23^rd March 1976 says,” Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.”

The main aim of this covenant was to recognise the need to abolish death penalty and also to persuade the countries that have not abolished death penalty to have a more humane approach towards human life.

Europe represents the only world region which has eliminated death penalty completely. It is a death penalty free zone. Amnesty International’s statistics show that only 84 countries have retained death penalty among which India is one of them. Developments in international instruments certainly demonstrate an enormous political will to abolish death penalty worldwide and make right to life a universally and unconditionally implemented standard.

British Justice System has abandoned death penalty for murder for two decades now (Homicide Act, 1957) without escalation of murderous crime. Attempts to get round the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, 1965 have failed in Parliament and as Barbara Wooton says, 'Capital punishment thus appeared to be itself sentenced to death' for murder. To quote the Royal Commission's recommendation for retention after Parliament has abolished death penalty is only of historical interest: "After the Abolition Act had been in force for over seven years, the Criminal Law Revision Committee considered whether any further changes in the penalty for murder were desirable. Their conclusions were almost entirely negative." However, in England capital punishment had been abolished on an experimental basis in 1965 and was made permanent in 1970.

The Sixth Protocol of European Convention of Human Rights in 1982 provides for complete abolition of death penalty in all European member nations. However, there is no conviction that crime trends could be influenced through, threat or enforcement of death penalty.

In America also there have been efforts to abolish death penalty. It has been argued that death penalty has been unconstitutional as a cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, violating the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of United States which says “ No person shall be deprived of his life except according to the due process of law.”

On 6 June 1995 the South African Constitutional Court declared the death penalty to be incompatible with the prohibition of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" under the country's interim constitution. Eight of the 11 judges also found that the death penalty violates the right to life.

When an African nation can take such a novel and humane step towards the life of man then a Democratic Republic India can definitely make a bench mark by abolishing death penalty in the South-Asian region.

In a paper presented by Amnesty International titled ‘ Civil and Political Rights, Protection of Personal Integrity and Abolition of Death Penalty’ at the World Congress on Human Rights held at New Delhi in 1990, studied that though there have been several cases posing death penalty, they observed that the crime rate has not come down. There has always been a frivolous assumption that death penalty would bring in a kind threat among the people and would lead to the increase in the crime rate and criminals. A better world is one without legal knifing on life.

However, to allow death penalty by the state and execute the convicted offender is no more justifiable than a crime. It is a great miscarriage to justice and many such innocent persons have been executed.

From the time immemorial this has for long remained a controversial question both at national and international level. The issue has been tirelessly debated on national as well as international level but nothing conclusive has come out till now. No doubt the problem is of serious nature but the difficulty involved should not deter us from venturing into the pros and cons involve in the question. The opinion of intellectuals such as Legal Philosophers, Jurists, Judges, and other social scientists stands divided. In many countries capital punishment is an integral part of criminal justice system and it has remained to be accepted form of justice through the ages though its form may have been different because of reasons of geography, culture, and the passing of time.

The Indian jurisprudence is a blend of reformative and deterrent theories. While the punishments are to be imposed to deter the offenders, it is also inalienable part of Indian penal jurisprudence that the offenders should be given opportunity for reformation. Bearing in mind these fundamental tenets, the legislatures drafted Sec. 354 (3) of the CR.P.C.

This subsection basically lays down that special reasons are to be recorded by the Court for imposing death punishment in capital offences. Thus, the position of law after Cr.P.C. 1973 became that the general rule was life imprisonment while the death sentence was to be imposed only in special cases.

Crime has rightly been described as an act of warfare against the community touching new depths of lawlessness. The object of imposing deterrent sentences is threefold:
(1) To protect the community against callous criminals for a long time.
(2) To administer as clearly as possible to others tempted to follow them into lawlessness on a war scale if they are brought to and convicted, deterrent punishment will follow, and
(3) To deter criminals who are forced to undergo long-term imprisonment from repeating their criminal acts in future. Even from the point of view of reformative form of punishment "prolonged and indefinite detention is justified not only in the name of prevention but cure. The offender has been regarded in one sense as a patient to be discharged only when he responds to the treatment and can be regarded as safe", for the society.

Hobbes asserted that every man had under the natural order has the right of repraisal for wrongs done to himself or anyone else. Then he said that social contract had left this right to the sovereign while taking it away from everyone else. Kant viewed that every political society had a duty to enforce retributive justice. Rousseau felt that the subject ought not to complain if the sovereign demanded the subject’s life.

He considered death as a proper punishment, if the criminal was beyond redemption. England abolished death penalty by murder 2. In spite of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, 1965 in England death sentence can be lawfully imposed in cases of high treason, setting fire to Queen’s ships, arsenals etc and in piracy with violence. In the Soviet Union Death Penalty was abolished in May 1947 and in May 1950 it was reintroduced for Treason, espionage and sabotage and in 1954 for intentional homicide under aggravating circumstances. French Penal Code of 1810 as amended in 1959 retained Death Penalty 3. Death Penalty has been retained by the prepatory draft for the revised Penal Code of Japan4, though it should be invoked with great caution5. This points out towards the fact that most of the nations are reluctant to do away with the Death Penalty.

One of the arguments of abolitionists is that death penalty is against Hindu Philosophy but this will not stand the scrutiny of mythological texts. The imposition of death penalty in India: appears to go back to ancient times according to the country’s epics and mythology: stories abound in our mythology of the destruction of demons who, became a deadly menace to the life, property and authority of mortals and the divine race alike; tales of Hiranyakashyapu, Bali and Mahishasura etc.

No doubt religion preaches against killing of human being but that presupposes an ideal society and if we cannot provide ideal conditions then we cannot of particular aspect in isolation. The statistics, which talks of absence of any relationship between death penalty and occurrence of crime, cannot be straightway trusted for such an important policy decision as that of death penalty. The statistics derived from a quantitative method may not be an appropriate method to judge the basic truth about the qualitative aspects of those results.

The punishment is retributive in character. The object of sentencing should be to see that the crime does not go unpunished and the victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that justice has been done to it lest it may lead to Lynch Law. There have been instances where victim’s relative killed the accused. Criminal Law has its origin in vengeance. Punishment mechanism revolves around the satisfaction of law-abiding person’s anger. Anger is not always bad but it is the indifference of community towards the circumstances, which is more harmful. One of the purposes of law is to calm the community’s anger by punishing the criminal. Anger which is not selfish like greed or jealously is socially constructive and when it erupts for right cause it should be rewarded.

Punishment is primarily satisfaction of private revenge and at the same time an emphatic denunciation of the crime by the society. Any civilized society which shies away from showing righteous indignation has nothing to distinguish it from maim soul The Criminal Law stands to the passion of revenge in much the same relation as marriage to sexual appetite. Retributive punishment tends to control recidivism.

The theory of deterrent punishment draws its inspiration from the hedonistic philosophy of Beccaria’s classical school of criminology. A rigorous and maximum punishment as against a moderate and lesser punishment helps to prevent the commission of a crime. For the incorrigibles and habitual and hardened criminals death penalty is best suited and it is the only method teaching hardened criminals. The incorrigible and hardened criminal as a rotten limb of the society must be eliminated.

The prevalence of recidivism offers a serious stumbling block to a too ready acceptance of the idea of readily achieved reformation. The recidivist becomes the criminal who after having experienced rehabilitation treatment returns to crime and ultimately to prison again to be rehabilitated further. Making murder a safer proposition, a less deadly proposition for the killer will have a hostile effect on society.

The capital punishment is an effective tool to curve the grave wrong act such as of killing and it can also be instrumental in preventing society from becoming ever more imperfect than it need be.

Previous efforts to abolish the Death Penalty
Legislative attempts to abolish the death penalty in India have failed. Before Independence a private Bill was introduced in the 1931 Legislative Assembly to abolish the death penalty for penal code offences. The British Home Secretary at the time however rejected the motion.

The Government of independent India rejected a similar Bill introduced in the first Lok Sabha . Efforts were also made in Rajya Sabha to move resolution for abolition of death sentence in 1958 and 1962 but were withdrawn after some debate.

The Law Commission in its Report presented to the Government in 1967 and to the Lok Sabha in 1971 concluded that the death penalty should be retained and that the executive (President) should continue to possess powers of mercy.

It was held in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. that death sentence act as deterrence but as token of emphatic disapproval of the crime by the society, where the murder is diabolical in conception and cruel in execution and that such murderers cannot be simply wished away by finding alibis in the social maladjustment of the murderer. Expediency of transplanting western experience in our country was rejected, as social conditions and so also the general intellectual levels are different. The court referred to the 25th Report of the Law Commission of India, in which it was stated that India cannot risk the experiment of abolition of capital punishment. The fact that the possibility of an error being committed in the matter of sentence can be corrected by appeals and revisions to higher courts was relied upon.

The approach of our Supreme Court in the matter of death sentence is cautious as well as restrictive which is in consonance with the modern and liberal trends in criminal jurisprudence. The doctrine of Rarest of Rare evolved by the apex Court reflects the humanist Jurisprudence.

There have been ample instances where the Supreme Court has restricted the use and imposition of death penalty only to cases coming with in the category of rarest of rare.

Under sec 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 a new provision has been introduced to say that when the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reason for the sentence awarded and in the case of sentence of death, the special reason for such sentence.

Rarest of rare cases
Whether a case falls under the category of rarest of rare case or not, for that matter the Apex court laid down a few principles for deciding the question of sentence. One of the very important principles is regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Court opined that while deciding the question of sentence, a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in that particular case has to be drawn. Full weightage should be given to the mitigating circumstances and even after that if the court feels that justice will not be done if any punishment less than the death sentence is awarded, then and then only death sentence should be imposed.

In Machhi singh vs. State of Punjab the court laid down: - "In order to apply these guidelines inter-alia the following questions maybe asked and answered:
(a). Is there something uncommon about the crime, which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?
(b). Are there circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favor of the offenders?"

Indispensability of Capital Punishment in India
Life imprisonment in our country is not of much significance as it can be substantially reduced (limitation is that it cannot be reduced below 14 years). Life imprisonment under no circumstances should be reduced as it is in most heinous crimes that the sentence life imprisonment is awarded. Even if this is accepted still there are other valid objections. Death penalty cannot be removed or abolished on humanitarian grounds or on the grounds of other alternative mode of punishment are available. A killer who is a perpetrator of other’s right to live can’t claim to have an inviolable right to live.

The focus should be on the mischief flowing from what the criminal has done to his victim and those near and dear to him and greater attention be paid to victimlogy and therefore to the retributive aspect of punishment. The abolitionist needs to shift their focus from criminal to victim, as a killer is a proven enemy of society. Even if option to decide on death penalty or life imprisonment is to be given it should be left to the victim’s family who have suffered due to the killer and know more about cruelty than the abolitionists. The demand of abolition of death penalty is a demand in wrong direction and represents a trend reversal when society is considering the issue whether mercy killing be accepted or not. Death penalty to a killer is a sort of mercy to an ailing society, which wants to get rid of its enemy. The process of reformation of criminals with an unascertained record would entail a great risk as a sizable number of criminals instead of being reformed may be encouraged to commit offences after offences and become a serious and horrendous hazard to the society. The question, therefore, is--should the country take the risk of innocent lives being lost at the hands of criminals committing heinous crimes in the holy hope or wishful thinking that one day or the other, a criminal, however dangerous or callous he may be, will reform himself, Valmikis are not born everyday and to expect that our present generation, with the prevailing social and economic environment, would produce Valmikis day after day is to hope for the impossible.

Even for the sake of argument if it is accepted that capital punishment has no deterrence then it means that criminal is not afraid of death and it will be difficult for the state to keep such a person in prison after all it is the fear of death that keeps a criminal in jail. After all criminal facing life imprisonment need a single chance to set himself free for taking a revenge from adverse witnesses and the prosecution who according to him were responsible for sending him to jail. Judge may also become the victim of his anger. As there is a saying so long as there is life, there is scope for irrepressible hope and hope for a break for freedom. A prisoner serving life imprisonment can go on a killing spree and there can be no further punishment from the punishment he is already facing. One important question that arises is shall we sacrifice the lives of future victims in order to spare the life of a murderer. Argument that goes against death penalty is that the societies do not have the right to take anyone’s life since it cannot give life then why to kill soldiers of enemy, terrorist. One may say what is the need of providing arms to security forces if no human being can be deprived of his/her life whatever may be the circumstances. Prima Facie, the penalty of death is likely to have a stronger effect as a deterrent to normal human behavior than any other form of punishment, though it is difficult to unravel the innermost recesses of the minds of potential murderers.
The conditions prevailing in some western countries that have abolished death penalty are incomparable with India. In abolitionist States even the most notorious criminals are effectively segregated from civil society for the rest of their natural life.

Contrastingly, in India life sentence can be reduced to 14 years. Our prison system is inadequate and unable to hold capital offenders for longer periods as in most western countries. How many times we have read the reports in newspaper about recovery of cell phones from prisons and many criminals find it suitable to operate from jails as they are protected from their rival criminals.

Conclusion:-
"Each extreme is a vice; virtue lies in the middle" - Aristotle

The death penalty is a part of Indian law, and unless it is altered by legal or constitutional amendment, it is a given which every judge of every Indian court is bound to apply, whenever the relevant legal test are fulfilled.

The Indian jurisprudence is a blend of reformative and deterrent theories. While the punishments are to be imposed to deter the offenders, it is also inalienable part of Indian penal jurisprudence that the offenders should be given opportunity for reformation. Bearing in mind these fundamental tenets, the legislatures drafted Sec. 354 (3) of the CR.P.C. This subsection basically lays down that special reasons are to be recorded by the Court for imposing death punishment in capital offences. Thus, the position of law after Cr.P.C. 1973 became that the general rule was life imprisonment while the death sentence was to be imposed only in special cases.

Prima facie, the penalty of death is likely to have a stronger effect as a deterrent to normal human being than any other form of punishment, though it is difficult to unravel the innermost recesses of the mind of the potential murderers. The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the culprit deserves it, irrespective of weather it is a deterrent or not. Retribution is still a socially acceptable function of punishment. The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man. Retribution and deterrence are not two divergent ends of capital punishment. They are convergent goals, which ultimately merge into one. Death penalty to a killer is a sort of mercy to an ailing society, which wants to get rid of its enemy. Anger which is not selfish like greed or jealously is socially constructive and when it erupts for right cause it should be rewarded.

But everyone else and by this reformative step individuals will either be deterred or swerved from the thought process of killing a human being, which can be characterized as the ending of a sentence in any literature, only the author has the privilege to end the sentence, none other is privileged to do, and for he same rationale, one has the privilege to decides one’s life and anyone who willingly snatches and disturbs that privilege loses his own and the state thus by implementing capital punishment on these unruly people is genuinely making an endeavour to paint on the canvas of society the importance of ‘one life one individual has’ and it is valued more than anything else and not that it is implemented to quench anyone’s draconian thirst and to sum up and reinforce my argument I quote a piece of folk wisdom prevalent in the land of Arabia: "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen."

If the law is not enforced then cure is enforcement, not repeal. If death penalty is an evil it is a necessary evil and a criminal chooses this voluntarily.

To sum it up in the words of Fali.S.Nariman, a senior Supreme Court Advocate, “It is time for India to take consideration of the International hue and cry which has been going on and take a humane step towards mankind and his existence with dignity.”

"Loved reading this piece by aditya chopra?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group