MORALITY AND DEATH PENALTY

MORALITY AND DEATH PENALTY

SUBJECT LRM

SUBMITTED TO :SUBMITTED BY:-NITISH KUMAR UPADHYAY SANU KUMAR ROLL NO-962INTRODUCTIONMEANING OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:According to oxford Dictionary, Capital punishment is the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. Capital punishment is the death sentence awarded for capital offences like crimes involving planned murder, multiple murders, repeated crimes; rape and murder etc where in the criminal provisions consider such persons as a gross danger to the existence of the society and provide death punishment. Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime.In 1814 there were three cases of cases of boys of eight , nine, and eleven years cases of boys eight nine and eleven years who were hanged .In the mugal period torturios method were used in the execution of condemned criminalFour characteristics of capital punishment may be pointed out as followi.capital punishment is given only for seven crimeii.hanging in the presence of public is totally abolished.iii.No painful method are used is executing death penaltyiv.capital punishment is awarded only by a governing authorityThe Indian penal code recognizes capital punishment under section[footnoteRef:2] (121,132,194,302,303,305,307 and 396) for different offences . [2: Indian penal code 1860,S.C.Sarkar,Ed-2nd(2011)),Pub-UNIVERSAL,1/10/2013,1:58PM]

Article 21 of Indian constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal libertiy except according to the procedure established by law.Mode of Execution:The execution of death sentence in India is carried out by two modes namely hanging by neck till death and being shot to death. The jail manuals of various States provide for the method of execution of death sentence in India. Once death sentence is awarded and is confirmed after exhausting all the possible available remedies the execution is carried out in accordance with section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure1973 i.e. hanging by neck till death. Section 354(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure says, When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead. It is also provided under The Air Force Act, 1950, The Army Act 1950 and The Navy Act 19572 that the execution has to be carried out either by hanging by neck till death or by being shot to death.

Methods[footnoteRef:3] [3: http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Ethics/Applied_Ethics/Capital_Punishment/capital_punishment.php,2/10/13,2:34PM]

People have been put to death for crimes in almost every conceivable way. Some of the most popular (meaning widely used) methods over the years have been:-Crucifixion-Drowning-Buried alive-Beaten to death-Impaled-Drinking poison-Stoning

-MORALITY GROUND BEHIND DEATH PENALTYEvery human life is precious. This is something that has been taught by the Roman Catholic Church for years. Each day one is alive can be seen as a gift from God. As a result of this gift, we hear many people come up with phrases such as Live everyday as your last, or Live as if youll die tomorrow. Unfortunately, for some, these phrases can be more than just a saying. They can be facts. The people, for whom this holds truth, tend to be disliked by many and even hated by some. The type of person who faces a simple phrase such as Live as if youll die tomorrow as something that is actually the truth, is typically not a person with much freedom. This type of person, like many other in the same situation, fall under one category; a criminal. A criminal is one held under imprisonment for committing a violent or unlawful act. The type of criminal who lives in uncertainty of their own life is left with the fear of execution every day, due to their act of murder on another human being. This idea brings forth the moral argument of Capital Punishment. Capital Punishment is defined as the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. The idea of taking a life as a means of punishing someone for murder has been the subject of a long and often heated debate. While many contend that Capital punishment serves the judicial system as a deterrent to crime and as a lawful penalty many others contend that Capital Punishment is both morally and ethically wrong.-EXISTENCE OF DEATH PENALTY

According to Amnesty International, 140 countries have abolished the death penalty.[footnoteRef:4] In 2012, only one country, Latvia, abolished the death penalty for all crimes. In 2011, 21 countries around the world were known to have carried out executions and at least 63 to have imposed death sentences.list of some of those countries is given below. [4: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html,2/10/13,3:10PM]

AGAINST DEATH PENALTY Russia (1999) Sierra Leone (1998) Sri Lanka (1976) Suriname (1982) Swaziland (n.a.) Tajikistan (n.a.) Tanzania (n.a.) Tonga (1982) Tunisia (1990)- Death Penalty Permitted

-INDIA,CHINA,IRAQ,IRAN,UNITED STATE,SOUTH SUDAN,SAUDI ARABI

-RESEARCH METHODOLOGY(I) Doctrinal MethodThe researcher has referred various books ,articles regarding death penalty(II) Non- Doctrinal MethodThe researcher opted non- doctrinal method which consists of interviewing of -Judges-Advocate-Students-AIMS AND OBJECTIVESThe aims and objectives of researcher is to study about-Morality behind death penalty -what extent the-At theory of rarest of rare is justify for awarding death penalty

-HYPOTHESISThe researcher hypothesized that-Whether the theory of Rarest of Rare theory is the best way in order to award death penalty-Whether death penalty should be abolished fromindia

-CHAPTERATION CHAPTER 1HISTORY 0F DEATH PENALTY IN INDIAThe death penalty was codified as part of the Indian Penal Code in 1861. It was not until 1931 that this was seriously challenged when a member of the Bihar Assembly unsuccessfully sought to introduce a bill seeking its abolition. Support for the death penalty remained strong. In 1946, on the eve of Independence, the then Union Home Minister stated that the Government did not think it wise to abolish capital punishment. Ten years later, when the Government asked the States for their opinion, most of them expressed support for the death penalty. In its 35th report, produced in 1967[footnoteRef:5], the Law Commission took the view that capital punishment acted as a deterrent to crime. While it conceded that statistics did not prove these so-called deterrent effects, it also said that figures did not disprove them either. [5: Law Commission of India, 35thReport Volume I-III (Capital Punishment) September 1967,Ministry of Law, Government of India.,3/10/2013,4:34pm]

There was, however, some unease over the death penalty. One consequence was a change in the law in 1955, which said courts no longer had to explain why they did not award a sentence of death in a case. In 1973, it was provided that while handing down a death sentence, special reasons should be given.The Supreme Court traditionally has not questioned the death sentenceper se. In the Jagmohan Singh case[footnoteRef:6] (1973), it agreed with the Law Commission that capital punishment should be retained. [6: AIR 1973 SC 947,3/10/2013,5:12PM]

But subsequent cases such as those of EdigaAnamma (1974) and Rajendra Prasad (1979) saw dissenting voices being raised in the apex court. These led to a hearing of the Bachan Singh (1980) case[footnoteRef:7] by a Constitutional Bench. The Bench concluded by a four to one vote that the death penalty did not violate Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution. It warned judges not to be bloodthirsty and ruled that the death penalty should not be imposed, save in the "rarest of rare cases," when the alternative remedy is unquestionably foreclosed. But some liberal judges tried to develop the alternative by holding that the convict could invoke Article 21 in the event of the death sentence not being carried out even after two years and demand that it be quashed. [7: AIR 1980 SC 1335,3/10/2013,5:46PM]

However, in the Trivenben (1989[footnoteRef:8]) case, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the death penalty as constitutional. It held that the delay could only be counted from the day the Supreme Court's judgment was pronounced in other words, when the judicial process came to an end. The Court added a caveat that the time consumed by repeated petitions at the instance of the convicted person should not be counted or considered a delay. [8: AIR 1989 SC 1335,4/10/2013,2:02PM]

But the Supreme Court in April 1991 reduced the death sentence that it had confirmed in the 1988 Daya Singh case the assassin of the former Punjab Chief Minister, Pratap Singh Kairon to life imprisonment because of the delay factor. Strangely, this was done without any examination of the causes of the delay, apparently in defiance of the 1989 decision.the death penalty, declared that the courts must reflect public abhorrence of crime, and that when they award sentences they must not only keep the rights of the accused in mind, but A different reaction was visible in the Dhanunjoy case (1994). The trial involved the rape and murder of an 18-year-old girl by a security guard. The Supreme Court, while confirming also the rights of the victims and of society at large.This cacophony of differing judicial views is bound to continue so long as the death penalty remains in the statute book. Each judge, it seems, reaches for his own interpretation of the retributive or reformative aspect of criminal punishment. So we have confusing signals on the death penalty. Ironically, after the "rarest of rare" doctrine was propounded in 1980, the Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty in 40 per cent of the cases during 1980-90, whereas it was 37.7 per cent from 1970 to 1980. For the High Court the figures confirming death sentence rose from 59 per cent in 1970-80 to 65 per cent during 1980-90.The vociferous opposition to the abolition of death penalty stems from the myth that it will lead to an increase in the number of murders. The facts are otherwise. In the State of Travancore, there were 962 murders between 1945 and 1950 when the death penalty was not in force; but in the five years from 1950 when it was re-imposed, there were 967 murders.The death penalty was abolished in 1965 in the U.K. Member-states of the European Union cannot have the death penalty. In Canada, after theabolition of the death penalty in 1976, the homicide rate declined. In 2000, there were 542 homicides in Canada 16 fewer than in 1998 and 159 fewer than in 1975 (one year prior to the abolition of capital punishment). In 1997, the Attorney-General of Massachusetts said: "there is not a shred of credible evidence that the death penalty lowers the murder rate. In fact, without the death penalty the murder rate in Massachusetts is about half the national average.A survey released in September 2000 byTheNew York Times[footnoteRef:9]found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in States with the death penalty had been 48 to 101 per cent higher than in those that did not allow capital punishment. A survey conducted by the United Nations in 1988 concluded that research had failed to provide any evidence that executions had a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. [9: Quoted by Leonard A. Stevens inDeath Penalty: The Case of Life vs. Death in the United States (New York: Coward, McCann &Geoghegan, 1978),73 ,4/10/2013,2:34PM]

The South African Constitutional Court unanimously ruled in 1995 that the death penalty for murder violated the country's Constitution. More than 118 countries have abolished the death penalty either in law or practice. The second optional protocol to the International Civil Covenant, which came into force in 1991, mandates the abolition of the death penalty. India has unfortunately not even signed it, thus placing it in the doubtful company of the U.SThe rationale for the abolition of death penalty is qualitatively different and it was wisely expressed by President Eduardo Frei of Chile while commuting the death sentence in 1996 "I cannot believe that to defend life and punish the person that kills, the state should in its turnkill. The death penalty is as inhuman as the crime which motivates it."CHAPTER- 2 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR DEATH PENALTYThe Article 21[footnoteRef:10] of the constitution, which deals with the Fundamental Rights of life and liberty, states No person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except according to procedure established by law. Thus, it can be seen that the death penalty is verily upheld by the Indian Constitution. However, the same article, rather the same sentence, upholding two views at opposite ends doesnt stand too well with the spirit of the constitution. That is, even though it is logically consistent, it is against the spirit of the Constitution. [10: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,R.S.Bedi ,Ed-1st,Pub-Universal 4/10/2013,2:56PM]

Another important provision regarding the capital punishment is the Presidential power of pardon. This appears in Article 72[footnoteRef:11] and states that The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence.. (c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death. The objective of this article is to ensure that there be an authority beyond the Supreme Court to help the innocent if in case the Supreme Court, being a human institution has committed an error. [11: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,R.S.Bedi ,Ed-1st,Pub-Universal 4/10/2013,4:03PM]

TYPES OF PARDON(I)Pardon-Compelete exoneration from punishment.(ii)Commutation-Means to reduce ,to give just next punishment.(iii)Remmision-Nature will not change but quantum of pnnishment will change.(iv)Resprieve-culprit can not be hanged until president has not consented for same.(v)Rispite-Nature will not be changed but quantum of punishment will change.CASES REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY(I). Bhagwati J. in Bachan Singh[footnoteRef:12] case recorded a dissenting note. Bhagwati, J. in his dissenting judgment has given a number of reasons for holding that death penalty is not only unconstitutional being violative of articles 14 and 21 but also undesirable from several points of view". One of the reasons given by him is that death penalty is irrevocable because the execution of the sentence of death in such a case makes miscarriage of justice irrevocable. [12: AIR 1980 SC 898,5/10/2013,1:12PM]

(II).The question of constitutional validity of death penalty has been raised before the Supreme Court of India more than once. In case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[footnoteRef:13].The constitutional validity of death penalty was upheld by the Supreme Court by a unanimous decision of the five judges composing the Bench. [13: AIR 1973 SC 947,5/10/2013,1:20PM]

(III). In case of Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh[footnoteRef:14], KrishanIyer J. said that death penalty directly affects the life of the people guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. But it has been provided by law and there is nothing like due law in Article 21. Therefore, it is valid. He further said that to impose death penalty the two things must be required: [14: AIR 1979 SC 916,5/10/2013,1:37PM]

- The special reasons should be recorded for imposing death penalty in a case.- The death penalty must be imposed only in extraordinary circumstances.(IV). The challenge touching the constitutionality of the death sentence also surfaced in Triveniben v State of Gujarat[footnoteRef:15] .and the Supreme Court asserted affirmatively that the Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty [15: AIR 1989 SC 1335,5/10/2013,1:56PM]

SECTION REGARDING DEATH PENALTY[footnoteRef:16] [16: INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860S.C.Sarkar,Ed-2nd(2011),Pub-UNIVERSAL,,5/10/13,3:23PM]

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides for capital punishment for the following offences, or for criminal conspiracy to commit any of the following offences (Section 120-B):1.Murder (s.302) and murder committed by a life convict (s. 303).(Though the latter was struck down by the Supreme Court, it still remains in the IPC)2.Abetment of a suicide by a minor, insane person or intoxicated person (s.305)3.Threatening or inducing any person to give false evidence resulting in the conviction and death of an innocent person (s.195A)4.Perjury resulting in the conviction and death of an innocent person (s.194)5.Treason, for waging war against the Government of India (s.121)6.Abetment of mutiny actually committed (s.132)control of Organised Crime7.Attempted murder by a serving life convict (s.307(2))8.Kidnapping for ransom (s.364A)9.Dacoity [armed robbery or banditry] with murder (s.396)Death penalty is also provided under the following special and local laws:1.Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 (as amended in 2004)2.Defence and Internal Security of India Act 19713.Defence of India Act 19714.Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act 19875.Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Prevention) Act, 1985, as amended in 19886.Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (TADA)7. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 (POTA)8.Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 19899.Explosive Substances Act 1908 (amended in 2001)10.Arms Act 1959 (amended in 1988)11.Laws relating to the Armed Forces, for example the Air Force Act 1950, the Army Act 1950 and the Navy Act 1950 and the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act 199212.Various states (Andra Pradesh, Karnataka, Arunachal Pradesh and Maharashtra) have Acts which entail the death penalty.CHAPTER -3PRINCIPLE OF RAREST OF RARENow, the judiciary has evolved its own jurisprudence in evaluating which cases are to be considered as fit ones for awarding capital punishment. Thus capital punishment is awarded only in rarest of rare cases. The determination of this is very difficult. There are various decisions in which the determination of rarest of the rare was in question. The Court could not follow any uniform guideline to reach a conclusion, and the subjectivity of the judges also play a vital role in this determination. The death sentence should be imposed in the rarest of the rare case. The Supreme Court in Machhi Singh v State of Punjab[footnoteRef:17] (1983) apex court laid down a few principles which were to be kept in mind while deciding the question of sentence: [17: AIR 1983 SC 957,5/10/2013,10:45PM]

- Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?- 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?"NO CHANCE FOR INJUSTICE:It is on the basis of this principle that in India benefit of a reasonable doubt is given to the accused even in cases of murder. A defense counsel uses all his skills and ingenuity to create a doubt in the mind of the judge and he gets repeated opportunities to do so. If he fails in the trail court, he makes a second attempt in the High Court and a third one before the Supreme Court. Thus the possibility of an erroneous conviction is wholly excluded.

Apart from this the power of pardon, remission and commutation of sentence vested in the Governor and the President furnishes another safeguard against a judicial error in the matter of punishment. The whole matter is examined with great care and caution while exercising the said power, keeping in view the interests of the individual on the one hand, and interests of the society on the other. The President is the elected head of the State and is expected to give effect to the will of the people. Thus a convict cannot be executed unless the extreme penalty in a particular case is not only considered proper in a judicial verdict but is also in consonance with the wishes of the people in general. I need not refer to other aspects of the matter which have been dealt with at length by Sarkaria J, in his elaborate majority judgment but I would like to stress one aspect of the matter. I fail to see why too much importance should be attached to the life of an individual who has been found guilty of a heinous offence when the interests of the society demand that death penalty should be awarded to him.Often in the event of a riot the police are required to open fire in the interests of society to disperse an unruly mob indulging in arson and violence to restore order if other methods fail. In such a firing even innocent persons are killed. Shall we say that the police should never resort to firing to quell a riot or to disperse a riotous mob merely because there is a risk of innocent persons being killed? No one will ever say that. If so why should we have qualms of conscience in awarding death penalty to an offender in extreme cases where the interest of the society demands it. The reformative aspect of justice is no doubt very important. But we do come across criminals who are beyond redemption.Even Krishna Iyer J. who strongly advocated the social and human aspect of law conceded in RajendraPrashad's case that death penalty may be legally permissible when he can never be reformed.Moreover, the Criminal Law provides ample safeguards. Under section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure[footnoteRef:18] the Court has to give special reasons for awarding the death penalty. Section 235(2) provides a hearing after conviction on the question of sentence. Hanging of a murderer gives no pleasure to a judge. He merely discharges a painful duty while awarding the death sentence in the interests of the society. We can, therefore, repose trust in the judges that they would discharge this onerous function with scrupulous care and human concern bearing in mind that imprisonment for life is the normal penalty for murder while death penalty is to be awarded only where the offender appears to be extremely depraved and a potential menace to society. So far as the constitutional aspect is concerned very cogent reasons are given in the majority judgment for upholding the constitutional validity of death penalty. [18: CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE N.D.BASU,Ed-1st,Pub-Universal7/10/2013,11:45PM]

To sum up, there can be no doubt about the constitutionality of the death penalty in our country. As regards its propriety in a particular case the matter has to be left to the discretion of the judge who has to bear in mind that normally imprisonment for life is the appropriate sentence for murder under section 302 IPC, particularly in the case of a woman. In the case of adult males death sentence may be awarded in cases where the murder and the entire circumstance of the case show that he is a potential menace to the society. The question of propriety of death penalty in a particular case has to be judged not merely from the point of view of the accused; the interests of the community as a whole must also be taken into consideration.Section 303 of Indian Penal Code:In case of Mithu v. State of Punjab[footnoteRef:19] it was contended that mandatory sentence of death for murder committed by life-convicts under section 303 of IPC is violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21. Therefore, section 303 of IPC is unconstitutional not only for the reason that it is unreasonable and arbitrary but also because it authorizes deprivation of life by an unjust and unfair procedure. Section 303 of IPC provides punishment for murder by life convict-Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder, shall be punished with death." In this case Supreme Court strike down section 303 of Penal Code as unconstitutional and declare it void. [19: AIR 1993 SC 473,9/10/2013,4:12PM]

Rope- Hanging:The question was arisen before the Supreme Court in Deena v. Union of India[footnoteRef:20] whether the execution of death penalty by hanging by rope is constitutional or not? [20: AIR 1983 SC 1155,9/10/2013,4:20PM]

Supreme Court held that the method prescribed by s. 354(5), Cr. P.C. for executing the death sentence does not violate the provision contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. The system Aof hanging by rope is in operation in large parts of the civilized world and there is a responsible body of scientific and legal opinion which holds that hanging by rope is not a cruel mode of executing the death sentence.nconstitutional and declare it void.Public- Hanging:Another question was arisen before the Supreme Court in Lacham Devi v. State of Rajasthan[43] whether for the execution of death penalty public hanging is constitutional or not?For answering this question Supreme Court adopted liberal view and held that public hanging is not prescribed in the prison rules therefore it is unconstitutional.Delay in execution of the death sentence:The reason behind delay in conviction is that ,according to justice bhagwatiHundred guilty persons may escape but not one innocent person should be convicted.[footnoteRef:21] [21: IN BACHAN SINGH CASE,AIR 1980 SC 898,9/10/2013,4:23]

Delay in execution of death sentence is a factor which may be taken into consideration for commuting the sentence of death to life imprisonment. In the case of Triveniben v. State of Gujarat[footnoteRef:22], the Supreme Court held that "....undue long delay in execution of the death sentence will entitle the condemned person to approach this court will under Art 32, but this court will only examine the nature of delay caused and circumstances ensued after sentence was finally confirmed by the judicial process..No fixed period of delay could be held to make the sentence of death in executable. If the Supreme Court finds the delay to be undue in the foregoing sense, the court would quash the sentence of death and substitute for it the sentence of imprisonment of life to that accused. [22: AIR 1989 SC 1335,9/10/2013,4:34]

Procedure established by law in Article 21 means a procedure which is just, fair and reasonable. Hence, any circumstance which renders the sentence harsh, unjust or unfair, offends Article 21.An undue long delay in execution of the death sentence after its confirmation (ss. 413-415, CrPC), for which the accused himself is not responsible, renders the sentence harsh and unjust as it causes additional torture and inhuman treatment.RECENT RAREST OF RARE CASES OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:DhananjoyChatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.[footnoteRef:23] The appellant, DhananjoyChatterjee was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment and was awarded death sentence by the session judge, confirmed by the High Court. A special leave petition was filed by the appellant. Leave was granted but the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. [23: [2004] 9 SCC 759,9/10/2013, 7:08PM]

SushiMurmu v. State of Jharkhand,[footnoteRef:24]A young child of 9 years was sacrificed before Goddess Kali by the appellant for his own prosperity is what the prosecution alleges. The Supreme Court awarded death penalty to the accused. [24: AIR 2004 SC 394,9/10/2013,7:21PM]

State of U.P. v. Satish,[footnoteRef:25]Stressing that leniency in punishing grave crimes would have serious consequences the supreme court has awarded the death penalty to a man for the rape and murder of a six year old girl. [25: Appeal (cri.) 256-257 of 2005,9/10/2013,7:34]

AjmalKasabcase[footnoteRef:26] on 3 May 2010, Mumbai Special Court convicted AjmalKasab for murder, waging war on India, possessing explosives, and other charges. On 6 May 2010, the same trial court sentenced him to death on four counts and to a life sentence on five other counts. Kasab has been sentenced to death for attacking Mumbai and killing 166 people on 26 November 2008. He was found guilty of 80 offences, including waging war against the nation, which is punishable by the death penalty. Kasab's death sentence was upheld by the Bombay High Court on 21 February 2011. And on 29 August 2012 his death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court also. [26: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1899-1900 OF 2011,9/10/2013,8:00PM]

CHAPTER -4 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

ARGUMENTS FOR THE RETENTION1. Capital punishment acts as a deterrent. If the death sentence is removed, the feat that comes in the mind of people committing murders will be removed. Do we want more of murders in our country or do we want less of them? All sentences are awarded for security and protection of society, so that every individual may live in peace. Capital punishment is needed to ensure this security.2. Elimination of the criminals. When the public peace is endangered by certain particularly dangerous forms of crime, death penalty is the only means of eliminating the offender.3. Possibility of repeated murders. Society must be protected from the risk of a second offence by a criminal who is not executed and who may be released, after release may commit murder again.4. Condition in India. In countries where capital punishment has been abolished, the figure of homicide is very low; four in a million, or even less than that.5. Public opinion. Public opinion is substantially in favor of capital punishment, and it would be unwise to abolish capital punishment contrary to the wishes of the majority of the citizens.

6. Prison administration. Keeping murderers alive in theprison greatly complicates the work of prison administration. If all convicted murderers were imprisoned, safety of the prison staff and the general public from the dangerous prisoners would be at risk.

7. Saving of funds. Money of the citizens should not be spent on maintaining people who cause great harm. The taxpayers should not be called upon to pay for the maintenance of anti-social criminals for an indefinite or for a very long period.8. Proportionate to crime. The punishment should bear a just proportion to the crime. Therefore, capital punishment is the only fit punishment for those who have deliberately violated the sanctity of human life.

9. More humane. Capital punishment in a painless and humane form is less cruel than imprisonment for life.10. No miscarriage of justice. If there is miscarriage of justice in one or two cases, the higher courts can be approached. The whole machinery of the Government would be there to protect the life of a person who is really innocent.ARGUMENTS FOR THE ABOLITION1. Capital punishment should be abolished because it is a legalized, revengeful and cruel destruction of Gods most wonderful creation, the human being.2. Immoral. Capital punishment is morally indefensible. Society has no right to take the life of any person. It is morally wrong for the State in the name of the law to take the life deliberately. In eliminating the criminals, it is stated; the State does not erase the crime, but repeats it.3. Inhuman. Capital punishment is essentially inhuman. Death penalty is a form of cruelty 4. Non-violence. Indian ideology is based on non-violence. Indian tradition is based on reformation of the mind and spirit. Where it was the opinion that only God could take away life given by him. Therefore a murderer should be sent to a penitentiary and there given every chance of reforming himself.5. Irrevocable. Capital punishment is irrevocable. If an innocent person is sentenced to death and executed, the greatest injustice results.When as a result of an erroneous conviction, a man is sent to prison, he can be compensated. But death admits of no compensation.Sometimes there may be a mistaken view of the law. Thus, it is argued that a person was sentenced to death in one Madras Full Bench case, on a confession made by him, to an investigating officer. Ten years later, the Privy Council, in a similar case, held that this case was wrongly decided, and that the confessions ought not to have been admitted in evidence.6. Unjust. The sentence of death injures the family of the offenders, and thus imposes suffering on persons who have done nothing to deserve the suffering. 7. Unequal application. Death penalty is applied unequally. Some persons who have not sufficient financial means to defend themselves or are morally unable to do so, suffer.The penalty, therefore, which should be the expression of absolute justice, often leads in practice to injustices against individuals.8. An eye for an eye. It will suffice to note that the system of individual revenge is no longer recognized. The punishment should not be given to any offender having this principle in the mind. The court should adopt the retributive approach in these cases.CHAPTER 5CONCLUDING REMARKCapital punishment is an exception where as life imprisonment is a rule.after independence only 55 person have been awarded death penalty from 1995 to 2013 only three person have been hanged . As the survey was conducted in worldwide in which 120 country voted against the motion whereas 21 country including India China along with Americavoted in favour of this motion,death penalty should remain in india.Beacusecrime is at peak .Death penalty sets an example to society prevent its repitation.death penalty is not awarded for every murder .the theory of Rarest of rare is followed in order to award death penalty.but this theory is quite ambiguious till now.It is totally depends upon the descrition of judges.hencejudgements defer from judges to judges.Inindia thecontrovercy over death penalty is because Rarest of rare theory is not vivid ,there is a need of improvement in this theory.According to justice A.K. Ganguly[footnoteRef:27] of the Supreme Court has termed the award of death sentence as "barbaric, anti-life, undemocratic and irresponsible" which is "legal" in the prevailing judicial system.The doctrine of the crime falling in the 'rarest of rare' category in awarding the death penalty was a "grey" area as its interpretation depended on individual judges. He cautioned that before giving death penalty, a judge must be "extremely careful" and weigh "mitigating and aggravating circumstances". [27: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-15/india/30401179_1_death-penalty-sc-judge--the rarest-of-rare-category,9/10/2013,10:45PM]

-En ye for an eye this seems bit aggressive but when we thing from victim point of view then itSeems justify.some time peole tends to be liberal towards culprit.they have to consider theCircumstances of victim family.Elimination of the criminals. When the public peace is endangered by certain particularly dangerous forms of crime, death penalty is the only means of eliminating the offender. Taking these things in to consideration,it is moral to give death penalty and it should remain exists in india.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - R.S.BEdI INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860-S.C.SARKAR CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - N.D.BASU JURISPRUDENCE AND SOCIAL THEORY-Prof. G.C.VENKATA SUBBARRAO LAW AND JUSTICE SOLI J. SORLIJEE

REFERENCES WWW.articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.comwww.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.comwww.bbc.co.ukwww.reprieve.org.ukwww.stanfordlawreview.orgwww.worldcoalition.orgwww.cas.umt.edu/phil/documents/bedauwww.stjohns.edu/media

RESEARCH QUESTION

1. Doesn't the Death Penalty deter crime, especially murder? A: No, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates.The death penalty has no deterrent effect. Claims that each execution deters a certain number of murders have been thoroughly discredited by social science research. People commit murders largely in the heat of passion, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because they are mentally ill, giving little or no thought to the possible consequences of their acts. The few murderers who plan their crimes beforehand -- for example, professional executioners -- intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught. Some self-destructive individuals may even hope they will be caught and executed.Death penalty laws falsely convince the public that government has taken effective measures to combat crime and homicide. In reality, such laws do nothing to protect us or our communities from the acts of dangerous criminals.

2.Don't murderers deserve to die? A: No one deserves to die. When the government metes out vengeance disguised as justice, it becomes complicit with killers in devaluing human life and human dignity. In civilized society, we reject the principle of literally doing to criminals what they do to their victims: The penalty for rape cannot be rape, or for arson, the burning down of the arsonist's house. We should not, therefore, punish the murderer with death.3.If execution is unacceptable, what is the alternative? A: INCAPACITATION. Convicted murderers can be sentenced to life imprisonment, as they are in many countries and states that have abolished the death penalty. Most state laws allow life sentences for murder that severely limit or eliminate the possibility of parole. Today, 37 states allow juries to sentence defendants to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole instead of the death penalty.Several recent studies of public attitudes about crime and punishment found that a majority of Americans support alternatives to capital punishment: When people were presented with the facts about several crimes for which death was a possible punishment, a majority chose life imprisonment without parole as an appropriate alternative to the death penalty4.Only the worst criminals get sentenced to death, right? A: Wrong. Although it is commonly thought that the death penalty is reserved for those who commit the most heinous crimes, in reality only a small percentage of death-sentenced inmates were convicted of unusually vicious crimes. The vast majority of individuals facing execution were convicted of crimes that are indistinguishable from crimes committed by others who are serving prison sentences, crimes such as murder committed in the course of an armed robbery.The death penalty is like a lottery, in which fairness always loses. Who gets the death penalty is largely determined, not by the severity of the crime, but by: the race, sex, and economic class of the prisoner and victim; geography -- some states have the death penalty, others do not, within the states that do some counties employ it with great frequency and others do not; the quality of defense counsel and vagaries in the legal process5.Whether death penalty is moral or not?Of course it is moral as it is a matter of rights. Any individual convicted of taking the life of another or any other crime warranting a life sentence has proven his/her disregard for the rights of others and therefore has no rights of their own. These kinds of individuals should be removed from society permanently .The death penalty helps with the justice with the criminals around the community. The morality to this punishment is for the criminal (and others for this matter) to interpret the actions and the wrong in them. Please note that the criminal action may be inhumane but the punishment is hence 'an eye for an eye'. Think about it if one of your family members was killed by a murderer and the murderer's punishment is the death penalty would it not be humane to not only you but to the rest of the society.