CRIMNOLOGY

PROJECT 5th SEMESTER

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Submitted by – Mohommad Izaan Rizvi

Roll number- 32

3rd year Regular

Acknowledgement
I take immense pleasure in thanking our respected teacher of Human Rights Dr.
Momin Noor Jahan, for having permitted me to carry out this project. I express
my gratitude to her for giving me an opportunity to explore the world of
information concerning my project topic.

Finally I’d thank my family members for their blessings and wishes for the
successful completion of the project.
INTRODUCTION
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. The judicial decree that someone
be punished in this manner is a death sentence, while the actual enforcement is an
execution. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or
capital offences. The term capital originates from the Latin word “capitalis”,
literally meaning "regarding the head" (referring to execution by beheading).1
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, capital punishment or death penalty refers
to execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of
a criminal offence.

Capital offence refers to any criminal charge which is punishable by the death
penalty. Crimes punishable by death vary from state to state and country to
country. In some American states these offenses may include first degree murder
(premeditated), murder with special circumstances (such as intentional, multiple,
involved with another crime, with guns, of a police officer, or a repeat offense),
and rape with additional bodily harm, and the federal crime of treason. A charge
of a capital offense usually means no bail will be allowed.

CRIMINOLOGICAL APPROACH OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

When we talk of capital punishment, two theories of punishment, namely
preventive theory and reformative theory occupy our minds.
“An eye for an eye will turn the whole world blind.”
-Mahatma Gandhi
This line by Mahatma Gandhi is the thrust of the Reformative Theory of
punishment. The most recent and the most humane of all theories are based on the
principle of reforming the legal offenders through individual treatment. Not looking
to criminals as inhuman this theory puts forward the changing nature of the modern
society where it presently looks into the fact that all other theories have failed to put
forward any such stable theory, which would prevent the occurrence of further
crime. According to reformative theory, the aim of punishment is to educate or
reform the offender himself. The Reformative theory is supported criminology.
Criminology regards every crime as a pathological phenomenon a mild form of
insanity, an innate or acquired physiological defect. There are some crimes which
are due to willful violation of the moral law by normal persons. Such criminals
should be punished adequately to vindicate the authority of the moral law. This
theory aims at transforming the criminal minds in a way that the inmates of the
peno-correctional institutions can lead the life of a normal citizen. It aims at their
rehabilitation and conforming to the norms of the society; into law-abiding
member. This theory condemns all kinds of corporal punishments.

“An owner of the land puts a notice that ‘trespassers’ would be prosecuted. He does
not want an actual trespasser and to have the trouble and expense of setting the law
in motion against him. He hopes that the threat would render any such action
unnecessary; his aim is not to punish trespass but to prevent it. But if trespass still
takes place he undertakes prosecution. Thus the instrument which he devised
originally consists of a general warning and not any particular convictions.”
-Fitchte
We know that "prevention is better than cure". The idea behind the preventive
theory of punishment is to keep the offender away from the society. The offenders
are punished with death, imprisonment of life, transportation of life etc. Preventive
theory was supported by utilitarian law reformers because of its humanizing
influence on penal law. In their view, it is the certainty of law and its severity which
has a real effect on offenders. The development of the institution of prison is
essentially an outcome of the preventive theory of crime. The main purpose of
preventive theory is to take such step as the accused person does not repeat the
offence after enjoyment of sentence. This theory justifies capital punishment as an
extreme form of punishment because of its determent effect. India follows the
preventive theory. A man has taken the life of another man. So he ought to be
deprived of his life.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

Capital Punishment has been practiced in various countries from very ancient times.
According to Ancient Roman Law, to make capital punishment even more painful,
the offender was physically tortured before granting the death penalty. Often, this was
done at public places to threaten the people so that the people do not dare to make
that offence again. A patricide was put in a sack accompanied with a dog, a cat and a
snake and further the sack was thrown into the river to ensure a painful death for him.
A person who failed to pay his loans was thrown down from a hill. There was a
provision of death penalty in countries like Yunan as well. The offender was killed in
the public place after his skin was taken out. In Philistine, the offender was killed by
throwing him on the point of the javelin or by throwing stones at him. In counties
such as Australia and Germany, the criminal was buried live and after that crushed
with wheels and also their eyes were damaged through hot iron rods.

1. ENGLAND
The traditional form of granting punishment in England was hanging. But it was
not the form of death penalty. The name of Henry VIII is very famous in the
history of England when we refer to capital punishment. He gave death sentence
to more than 72,000 people during his rule for every small crime and highly
terrific methods were adopted to kill the guilty. The offender was often dropped in
boiling water or oil. Queen Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII, was said to be far
beyond his father in granting death penalty.
Hanging was the traditional form of capital punishment in England. However it was
not the only one. In England beheading was normally reserved for the highborn and it
was last used in 1747. In the 16th century during the reign of Mary nearly 300
Protestants were burned to death in England. In the 18th century in Britain women
found guilty of counterfeiting or murdering their husbands were burned. But burning
as a capital punishment was abolished in Britain in 1790. The punishment for treason
in England was hanging, drawing and quartering. The person was drawn on a hurdle
pulled by a horse to the place of execution. They were hanged but if they were still
alive and sometimes conscious they were cut down.
However hanging was the most common method of execution in England from Saxon
times until the 20th century. At first the criminal stood on a ladder, which was pulled
away, or on a cart, which was moved. From the 18th century he stood on a trapdoor.
Sometimes the hanged man broke his neck when he fell but until the 19th century he
was usually strangled by the rope. In the 18th century and the early 19th century
hanging was the punishment for many crimes not just murder. During
the early 19th century the number of crimes punishable by death was greatly
reduced. Hanging as a punishment for forgery was abolished in 1836. After 1861
capital punishment was only retained for 4 crimes, murder, piracy, arson in the
Royal Dockyards and high treason.
In 1908 hanging was abolished for people under the age of 16. In 1933 the
minimum age for hanging was raised to 18.
Due to public demand a British Royal Commission was set up to think upon
abolishing death penalty in 1949. Henceforth, capital punishment was banned for
5 years in England and Wales in 1965 and finally abolished in the year 1969. But
since the last two decades, keeping in mind the increasing crime rate, the re –

introduction of capital punishment has become necessary.1

2. ITALY
The use of capital punishment in Italy has been banned since 1889, with the
exception of the period 1926-1947, encompassing the rule of Fascism in Italy and
the early restoration of democracy. Before the unification of Italy in 1860, capital
punishment was performed in almost all pre-unitarian states, except for Tuscany,
where it was historically abolished in 1786. It is currently out of use as result of
the adoption of the current constitution, and defunct as of 1 January 1948.
Execution of capital punishment by guillotine was subsequently abolished in 1889
and only revived under Italian Fascism.
Afterwards the death penalty was definitively abolished in the Penal Code in 1889
with the almost unanimous approval of both Houses of Parliament under
suggestion of Minister Zanardelli.2
Various criminologists have put up their views regarding capital punishment.
Lombroso has stated that capital punishment is right for dangerous criminals
while Gorofolo was against the use of capital punishment. Bakaria was also
against death penalty as he believed that it causes a bad effect on the society.
Italy has since developed a stance strongly against capital punishment. Fewer than
half of Italians approved of the 2006 execution of Saddam Hussein. Italy proposed
the UN moratorium on the death penalty, which urges states to establish a

1
Criminology and Criminal Administration, Dr. N.V. Paranjape, Second Edition 1999, Central
Law Publication
2
Indro Montanelli; Storia d'italia, vol 6, pag 215
moratorium on executions with a view toward abolition and urged states around to
world to approve it. The former Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema also
stated that the next step was to work on abolishing the death penalty.
The 2008 European Values Study (EVS) found that 62.6% of respondents in Italy
said that the death penalty can never be justified, while only 4.8% said it can
always be justified.3

3. AMERICA (U.S.A.)
Capital punishment (also called the death penalty or execution) in the United
States is limited under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and, in practice, is used almost exclusively for aggravated murders committed by
mentally competent adults.
Capital punishment was a penalty for many felonies under English common law,
and it was enforced in all of the American colonies prior to the Declaration of
Independence. It is currently a legal sentence in 32 states,4 as well as the federal
civilian and military legal systems. Since capital punishment was reinstated in
1979, thirty-four states have performed executions. Texas has performed the most
executions by far, and Oklahoma has had (through mid-2011) the highest per
capita execution rate.5
The methods of execution and the crimes subject to the death penalty vary by state
and have changed over time. The most common method since 1976 has been lethal
injection. In 2013, 39 inmates were executed in the United States6 and 3,108 were on

death row7 – an execution rate of less than 2%. Many states such as Texas,
Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio and Arizona regularly execute convicted murderers.

4. CHINA
Capital punishment in the People's Republic of China is usually administered to
offenders of serious and violent crimes, such as aggravated murder, but China retains
in law a number of nonviolent capital offenses such as drug trafficking. The

3
Gesis, Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
4
Simpson, Ian (2 May 2013). "Maryland becomes latest U.S. state to abolish death
penalty". Yahoo! News. Reuters. Archived from the original on 24 June 2013.
5
"The Execution State?". Oklahoma Watch. 2013-02-21. Retrieved 2013-10-29.
6
"Death Penalty in 2011: Year End Report".
7
"Death Row Inmates by State and Size of Death Row by Year"
People's Republic of China executes the highest number of people annually,
though other countries (such as Iran or Singapore) have higher per capita
execution rates.8 Watchdog groups believe that actual execution numbers greatly
exceed officially recorded executions; in 2009, the Dui Hua Foundation estimated
that 5,000 people were executed in China – far more than all other nations
combined.9 The precise number of executions is regarded as a state secret.

PRC authorities have recently been pursuing measures to reduce the official
number of crimes punishable by death, and limit how often the death penalty is
officially utilized. In 2011, the National People's Congress Standing Committee
adopted an amendment to reduce the number of capital crimes from 68 to 55.10
Later the same year, the Supreme People's Court ordered lower courts to suspend
death sentences for two years and to "ensure that it only applies to a very small
minority of criminals committing extremely serious crimes.”11
The list of capital crimes is found in of capital crimes includes counterrevolutionary
crimes, such as organizing an "armed mass rebellion"; endangerments of the public
security, such as committing arson; and crimes against the person, such as the rape of
a person under the age of 14. During the 1980s, "economic crimes" such as bribery,
drug-trafficking, and embezzlement were added to the legal code. Capital punishment
in China can be imposed on crimes against national symbols and treasures, such as

theft of cultural relics and (before 1997) the killing of pandas. 12 Executions for
political crimes are extremely rare and confined to persons involved in violence or the

threat of violence.13

Thirteen crimes were removed from the list of capital offenses in 2011, including
smuggling of cultural relics, wildlife products, and precious metals. This brought
the total number of capital offenses down from 68 to 55,14 though many of the

8
Fan, Maureen; Cha, Ariana Eunjung (2008-12-24). "China's Capital Cases Still Secret, Arbitrary".
The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-08-16.
9
Dui Hua Foundation, 'Reducing Death Penalty Crimes in China More Symbol Than
Substance', Dialogue, Issue 40, Fall 2010.
10
news.xinhuanet.com Capital crimes dropped- Retrieved 2012-04-06
11
International Business Times, 'China suspends executions for two years', 25 May 2011.
12
"Threats". Panda Central. World Wide Fund for Nature. Retrieved 2010-08-16.
13
Scobell, Andrew (September 1990). "The Death Penalty in Post-Mao China". China Quarterly
(123): 503–520.
14
International Business Times, 'China suspends executions for two years', 25 May 2011. 19
Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Chinese Government Considers Reducing
Number of Crimes Punishable by Death, 23 Feb 2011.
crimes dropped from the list were rarely if ever punished by the death penalty. 19
Capital punishment is also imposed on inchoate offenses, that is, attempted crimes
which are not actually fully carried out, including repeat offenses such as
attempted fraud. The recidivistic nature of the offenses, not their seriousness per
se, is what is adjudicated to merit the capital sentence.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA

Looking at the history of India, we cannot deny the presence of capital punishment
even in ancient history. A basis can be found in Hindu teachings both for permitting
and forbidding the death penalty. Hinduism preaches ahimsa (nonviolence), but also
teaches that the soul cannot be killed and death is limited only to the physical body.
The soul is reborn into another body upon death (until Moksha), akin to a human
changing clothes. The religious, civil and criminal law of Hindus is encoded in the
Dharmaśāstras and the Arthasastra. The Dharmasastras describe many crimes and
their punishments and calls for the death penalty in several instances, including
murder, the mixture of castes, and righteous warfare.
However the Mahabharata contains passages arguing against the use of the death
penalty in all cases. An example is a dialogue between King Dyumatsena and his
son Prince Satyavan15 where a number of men are brought out for execution at
the King's command.
Prince Satyavan says that sometimes virtue assumes the form of sin and sin
assumes the form of virtue. It is not possible that the destruction of individuals can
ever be virtuous. King Dyumatsena replies, “If the sparing of those who should be
killed be virtuous, if robbers be spared, Satyavan, all distinction between virtue
and vice will disappear.”
Satyavan responds, “Without destroying the body of the offender, the king should
punish him as ordained by the scriptures. The king should not act otherwise,
neglecting to reflect upon the character of the offence and upon the science of
morality. By killing the wrongdoer, the King kills a large number of his innocent
men. Behold by killing a single robber, his wife, mother, father and children, all are

15
Section 257 of the Santiparva
 killed. When injured by wicked persons, the king should therefore think seriously
on the question of punishment. Sometimes a wicked person is seen to imbibe
good conduct from a pious man. It is seen that good children spring from wicked
persons. The wicked should not therefore be exterminated. The extermination of
the wicked is not in consonance with the eternal law.”
On the other hand, such a liberal interpretation of the texts is not so absolute: in
the same text, in the Bhagavad Gita, righteous destruction of the wicked is
commended as meritorious and fulfillment of caste duty:
“Taking as equal pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat, gird thyself
for the battle; thus thou shalt not incur sin.”16
According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors:
1. a poison giver,
2. one who sets fire to the house,
3. one who attacks with deadly weapons,
4. one who plunders riches,
5. one who occupies another's land, and
6. one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is
incurred by killing such aggressors. Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting
for any ordinary man,..."17

 
CONTEMPORARY STATUS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA

India retains capital punishment for a number of serious offences.1819 The Indian
Supreme Court has allowed death penalty to be carried out only in 4 instances
since 1995 in cases which were "rarest of rare and shakes the collective
conscience of the community".

The Supreme Court in Mithu vs. State of Punjab26 struck down Section 303 of the
Indian Penal Code, which provided for mandatory death punishment for offenders
serving life sentence.20 Imposition of the capital punishment is not always followed
by execution (even when it is upheld on appeal), because of the possibility of

16
Bhagvadgeeta II. Verse 38
17
Chapter 1, text 36
18
Majumder, Sanjoy. "India and the death penalty." BBC News 4 August 2005.
19
SCR (2) 690
20 VENKATESAN, V. (7 September 2012). "A case against the death penalty". Frontline. Retrieved

30 July 2013.
commutation to life imprisonment.21 The number of people executed in India since
independence in 1947 is a matter of dispute; official government statistics claim that
only 52 people had been executed since independence.22 However, the People's
Union for Civil Liberties cited information from Appendix 34 of the 1967 Law
Commission of India report showing that 1,422 executions took place in 16 Indian
states from 1953 to 1963, and has suggested that the total number of executions since
independence may be as high as 3,000 to 4,300.23 In December 2007, India voted
against a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on
the death penalty.24 In November 2012, India again upheld its stance on capital
punishment by voting against the UN General Assembly draft resolution seeking to
ban death penalty.2526 The Supreme Court in Mithu vs. State of Punjab (1983)33
struck down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, which provided for mandatory
death punishment for offenders serving life sentence.

The case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab 27 challenged the constitutional
validity of capital punishment and on the grounds that it was against the article 14,
19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. But the Supreme Court did not consider it
illegal and stated that capital punishment was to be granted only in “rarest of rare
cases”.

It was held in Jagmohan Singh vs. State of U.P. 28 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

21
"capital punishment (law) - Encyclopedia Britannica".
Britannica.com. Retrieved 2013-04-23.
22
"'Number of executions much higher than 52.'" Times of India. 10 March 2005.
23 Batra, Bikram Jeet. "1422 executions in 10 years, many more?." India Together 2 April 2005.

24
"General Assembly GA/10678 Sixty-second General Assembly Plenary 76th & 77th Meetings".
ANNEX VI. Retrieved 30 July 2013.
25
"General Assembly GA/11331 , Sixty-seventh General Assembly Plenary 60th Meeting". 20
December 2012. ANNEX XIII. Retrieved 30 July 2013.
26
AIR 473
27
AIR 1980 SC 216
28
(1991) 3 SCC 471
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.

In Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab29 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?"
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 Punjab30, “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 Sher Singh and others vs. State of Punjab31 it was held that what is essential is
that the person recording the dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased
was in a fit state of mind. Where it is proved by the testimony of the Magistrate
that the declarant was fit to make the statement without there being the doctor's
opinion to that effect, it can be acted upon provided the court ultimately holds the
same to be voluntary and truthful. A certificate by the doctor is essentially a rule
of caution and, therefore, the voluntary and truthful nature of a statement can be
established otherwise.

In Rajendra Prasad vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh32, 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

29
(1977) 2 SCC 238; (1983) 3 SCC 470
30 AIR 1952 SC 27
31
AIR 1983 SC 465
32
AIR 1979 SC 916
successors33.” 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 human34.” In the case of Kehar Singh

vs. State (Delhi Administration)35 it was stated that to any civilized society, there can

be no attributes more important than the life and personal liberty of its members. That
is evident from the paramount position given by the Courts to Article 21 of the
Constitution. These twin attributes enjoy a fundamental ascendancy over all other
attributes of the political and social order, and consequently, the Legislature, the
Executive and the Judiciary are more sensitive to them than to the other attributes of
daily existence. The deprivation of personal liberty and the threat of the deprivation
of life by the action of the State is in most civilized societies regarded seriously, and
recourse, either under express constitutional provision or through legislative
enactment is provided to the judicial organ. But the fallibility of human judgment
being undeniable even in the most trained mind, a mind resourced by a harvest of
experience, it has been considered appropriate that in the matter of life and personal
liberty, the protection should be extended by entrusting power further to some high
authority to scrutinize the validity of the threatened denial of life or the threatened or
continued denial of

33
Ibid.
34
Ibid
35
(1989) 1 SCC 204
 personal liberty. The power so entrusted is a power belonging to the people and
reposed in the highest dignitary of the State.
R.S. Pathak, then the Chief Justice of India, explained in the Kehar Singh case
that “[p]ardoning power of President is [a]constitutional responsibility of great
significance, to be exercised when occasion arises in accordance with the
discretion contemplated by context.” The CJ further explained the reason: “to any
civilized society, there can be no attributes more important than life and personal
liberty of its members … recourse is provided to the judicial organ for its
protection … There is always a possibility of the fallibility of human judgment.”
The Constitution has provided checks and balances for almost every conceivable
situation. If the judiciary is fallible, the President has a chance of making a
correction under Article 72. And if the President’s exercise of his power was
questionable, the higher judiciary may ask him to reconsider.
This is how the three convicts sentenced to death in the Rajiv Gandhi
assassination case, Santhan, Murugan, Perarivalan, secured a reprieve from the
Madras High Court after the President dismissed their clemency petition in 2011.
Similarly, in the same year, the Supreme Court admitted a plea by Devinder Pal
Singh Bhullar’s wife. He had been sentenced to death for a 1993 terror attack in
Delhi, and his petition for pardon had been rejected. The wife of another condemned
prisoner, Mahendra Nath Das, also questioned the rejection of her husband’s mercy
petition. Through the Supreme Court’s intervention, his hanging was suspended.
Even in Dhananjoy Chatterjee’s case, the Calcutta High Court examined a petition
seeking a review of President Abdul Kalam’s decision turning down his mercy plea.

But it was ultimately rejected and he was executed in 2004.36

 
CAPITAL OFFENCES IN INDIA
Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of his life
except according to procedure established by law.
• A person who hatches a criminal conspiracy is granted with death penalty under
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
• A person who wages war against the Government or attempts to do so is granted
with capital punishment under Section 121 of IPC.

36
An act of constitutional impropriety, MADABHUSHI SRIDHAR, November 23, 2012, The Hindu
• According to Section 132 of IPC whoever abets the committing of mutiny by an
officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the
Government of India, shall, if mutiny be committed in consequence of that
abetment, be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
• Section 194 of IPC states that if innocent person be thereby convicted and
executed and if an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of
such false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished
either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described.
• According to Section 302 of IPC, persons who commit a murder shall be granted
with capital punishment.
• Section 303 of IPC states that whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for
life, commits murder, shall be punished with death.
• According to Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code, if any person under eighteen
years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a
state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment
for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 364A of IPC states that whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a
person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause
death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable
apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death
to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign state or
international inter – Governmental organization or any other person to do or
abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
• According to Section 376A of IPC, an amendment in the year 2013 provided for
death penalty in case he inflicts an injury upon woman during rape which causes
her death or to be in persistent vegetative state.37

37
The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II – Section I, Published by Authority, No. 17, New
Delhi, Tuesday, April 2, 2013/ Chaitra 12, 1935 (Saka)
• Section 396 of IPC states that if any one of the five or more persons, who are
conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity,
commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be
punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 
LAW COMMISSION’S REPORT ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
The Law Commission of India presented its report in the Parliament on 18
November, 1971 in which it was stated regarding capital punishment that the
objective of capital punishment is the society rage against criminals rather than
the feeling of revenge. Therefore, maintaining capital punishment in Criminal
Law. In the 42nd report of Law Commission published in June 1971 have stated
following points to keep some group of people away from the capital punishment
–
1. If, at the time of crime, the age of criminal is less than that of 18 years, he should
not be granted capital punishment.
2. Being a woman is no reason to escape from capital punishment
3. In India, the attempt to commit suicide should not be considered as a capital crime.


METHODS OF EXECUTION IN INDIA Hanging
All executions in India are carried out by hanging. In 1949, Nathuram Godse,
Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin, was the first person to be executed by hanging in
independent India.
The Supreme Court of India has suggested that capital punishment should be
given only in the "rarest of rare cases".38
Since 2010, two people have been executed in India. Ajmal Kasab, the lone
surviving terrorist of the 2008 Mumbai attacks was executed on 21 November
2012 in Yerwada Central Jail, Pune at 07:32 am IST. The Supreme Court of India
had previously rejected his mercy plea, which was then rejected by the President
of India. He was hanged one week later. Afzal Guru, a terrorist found guilty of

38
Sakhrani, Monica; Adenwalla, Maharukh; Economic & Political Weekly, "Death Penalty – Case for
Its Abolition"
 conspiracy in the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament was executed by
hanging in Tihar Jail, Delhi on 9 February 2013.
Shooting
The Army Act and Air Force Act also provide for the execution of the death
sentence.39 Section 34 of the Air Force Act, 1950 empowers the court martial to
impose the death sentence for the offences mentioned in section 34(a) to (o) of
The Air Force Act, 1950. Section 163 of the Act provides for the form of the
sentence of death as:-
"In awarding a sentence of death, a court-martial shall, in its discretion, direct that
the offender shall suffer death by being hanged by the neck until he be dead or
shall suffer death by being shot to death”.
This provides for the discretion of the Court Martial to either provide for the
execution of the death sentence by hanging or by being shot to death. The Army
Act, 1950, and the Navy Act, 1957 also provide for the similar provisions as in
The Air Force Act, 1950.

CONCLUSION
In India, capital punishment has been practiced since ancient times although the
methods of capital punishment have been changed time to time. The use of capital
punishment can also be found in Ramayana and Mahabharata.
The Santiparva of Mahabharata states in the favor of capital punishment that if the
offender is left unpunished, it will lead to increase in the crime rate and
henceforth giving capital punishment to a person who commits a capital offence is
not at all wrong.
The history is evident that capital punishment has never been stated illegal in
India. Even in Roman culture, according to Sir Henrymen, abolishment of capital
punishment was considered as wrong although the use of capital punishment was
not very often done.
Granting capital punishment to the offender should be considered as a demand of
justice.
On asking about whether capital punishment is correct or not, a school student gave
an answer which clarifies that capital punishment is correct but only in some cases.

39
"Consultation paper on mode of execution of death sentence and incidental matters" (PDF). Law
commission of India. Retrieved 29 July 2013.
She said – “Suppose there are two persons A and B. A killed his boss because he
was tortured by him pathetically in all possible ways and finally he got frustrated
and so wanted to get rid of him. Giving capital punishment to a person who has
not intentionally tried to harm the society is not ethical because he is not actually a
criminal but a sufferer. The judges should not be bloodthirsty and should think
before giving death statement to such people. On the other hand, B is a terrorist
and has been a medium of 5 bomb blasts. Such people cannot be left unpunished
to risk the lives of many who are innocent. What he does is intentionally and is
unethical. And so granting capital punishment to him can neither be termed as
unethical or non – violence.”
Capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes. If the criminal
knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to death, then the system
appears more draconian to him. Hence, he is less inclined to break and enter. He
may have no intention of killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is
much more apprehensive about the possibility if he knows he will be executed.
Thus, there is a better chance that he will not break and enter in the first place. A
system in place for the purpose of granting justice cannot do so for the surviving
victims, unless the murderer himself is put to death.
If murder is the willful deprivation of a victim’s right to life, then the justice
system’s willful deprivation of the criminal’s right to the same is—even if overly
severe—a punishment which fits the most severe crime that can be committed.
Without capital punishment, it could be argued that the justice system makes no
provision in response to the crime of murder, and thus provides no justice for the
victim.