Abolish Death Penalty India

Sunday, December 24, 2023

Summary AI

🧑‍⚖️ Facts of the Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court reviewed a death sentence awarded by a trial court to three men who were convicted of murdering a couple and injuring three other family members during a violent attack connected to a neighbourhood dispute.
The trial court had found that the attack was cruel and brutal and, on that basis, sentenced the accused to death, referring the matter to the High Court for confirmation.

⚖️ High Court’s Decision

A division bench of the High Court upheld the conviction but changed the punishment from the death penalty to life imprisonment till death.
The High Court said that while the crime was serious and involved planning and violence, it did not satisfy the “rarest of rare” standard that the law requires to justify capital punishment. In particular, it found that the acts — though grave — did not show such overwhelming brutality or social terror that justified execution.

📜 Legal Principles Behind Commutation

The High Court’s reasoning reflects broader principles in Indian capital punishment jurisprudence:

Under Indian law, life imprisonment is generally treated as the norm, and the death penalty is reserved only for the “rarest of rare” cases.
Superior courts (High Court or Supreme Court) have the power to modify death sentences if the case’s circumstances do not justify the ultimate punishment—even while upholding conviction. Factors often considered include:
- Age of the accused
- Possibility of reform
- Degree of brutality vs. intention to harm society at large
- Mitigating human circumstances
  These principles have repeatedly been recognised in Indian case law, where courts commute death sentences when they find serious mitigating factors or when the case does not fall strictly within the rarest-of-rare category.

🧠 What This Means

The High Court’s order doesn’t acquit the convicts — it sustains the murder conviction — but the punishment has been reduced to life imprisonment without execution.
“Life imprisonment till death” means they will remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives, although rules on remission/commutation by the government may still apply unless the court specifically restricts it.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/mp-high-court-commutes-death-sentence-to-life-imprisonment/articleshow/106243012.cms

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

India is one of 193 countries that retains the death penalty. Some judges have delivered landmark verdicts upholding the rights of death row prisoners, while debates continue advocating abolition or reform of sentencing policies. The Indian government remains committed to retention, asserting executions occur only in “rarest of rare” cases. The death penalty applies to crimes including murder, kidnapping, terrorism, desertion, inducement to suicide of a minor or mentally-retarded person, and in certain cases of rape. Outrage over child rape and murder has intensified these discussions. After an unofficial eight-year moratorium, the government executed Ajmal Kasab (Mumbai attacks) in 2012 and Afzal Guru (Parliament attack) in 2013, both covertly and immediately after mercy petitions were rejected. Prior to this, Dhananjoy Chatterjee was executed in 2004 after 13 years on death row. Following these, many mercy petitions have been rejected, creating fear among death row convicts. Courts continue to hand down death sentences at an increasing rate. Empirical studies highlight the plight of death row prisoners. The India Exclusion Report 2017-18 found fair trial rights largely denied, with convicts often marginalized by caste, religion, poverty, and education. The Death Penalty Research Project (2015) documented socio-economic profiles and experiences of death row prisoners. Dr. Reena Mary George’s studies (2014, 2009) emphasized poverty, social exclusion, and dignity as central to death row experiences, and examined the human rights impact of the penalty. According to the National Crime Records Bureau 2015, 101 prisoners were on death row, with many sentences commuted to life. The “rarest of rare” doctrine introduced by the Supreme Court in the 1980s has not substantially limited death sentences, which have increased over the decades. Justice Joseph (2018) reaffirmed the Bachan Singh judgment but urged restriction of the death penalty to only those cases meeting its criteria. While updating the blog and conducting my own empirical studies, I observed the heinous nature of the crimes that were committed and thought about the families, about their loss, about the victims who for no fault of their own died. If I lost my relative or a dear friend, would I still oppose death penalty and would I still advocate to abolish the death sentence? Having worked in the criminal justice system and also having the seen the other side, where often it is the marginalized, vulnerable and oppressed who are on death row makes me want to advocate for abolition of this punishment. Victims should definitely get justice for their loss, for their pain. No one should escape the rule of law. As long as humanity exists; crime will exist. Should we not re-consider our sentencing policies? Reena Mary George