82-year-old Kerala man gets death for killing son, family in 2022

31 October 2025

Krishnendu Mukherjee, Pinak Priya Bhattacharya & Riyan Ramanath V

Hameed alias Chittapan

An 82-year-old man named Hameed alias Chittappan was sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Court in Idukki, Kerala, for the brutal murder of his son, daughter-in-law, and two granddaughters in March 2022. Following a property dispute, Hameed locked the room where his family was sleeping and set their house on fire, causing all four deaths; the court found the crime to fall within the “rarest of rare” category. Hameed was convicted under sections of the Indian Penal Code including murder and arson, and also ordered to pay fines; the death sentence now requires confirmation by the Kerala High Court before it can be executed.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/82-year-old-kerala-man-gets-death-for-killing-son-family-in-2022/articleshow/124967435.cms

Alla­habad HC cites ‘defect’ in probe, com­mutes death sen­tence of four in CRPF attack case

The Hindu - International

31 Oct 2025

Cit­ing “defect in invest­ig­a­tion”, the Alla­habad High Court on Wed­nes­day set aside the death sen­tence of four per­sons and life impris­on­ment of another in con­nec­tion with a pre-dawn attack on Janu­ary 1, 2008, on a CRPF camp in Ram­pur dis­trict of Uttar Pra­desh. The attack left seven jawans and a rick­shawpuller dead. Eight per­sons were injured.

The Bench acquit­ted Mohammad Sharif, Sabaud­din, Imran Shah­jad, Mohammad Farooq and Jang Bahadur Khan of the charges of murder and oth­ers. The court, however, found the ve accused, includ­ing Khan who had been sen­tenced to life impris­on­ment, guilty under Sec­tion 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act and sen­tenced them to 10 years of rig­or­ous impris­on­ment. It imposed a ne of ₹ 1 lakh each on the peti­tion­ers who had approached the High Court against the judg­ment passed by the Addi­tional Dis­trict and Ses­sions Judge of Ram­pur on Novem­ber 1, 2019, and Novem­ber 2, 2019. “We are deeply con­cerned with the mag­nitude and enorm­ity of the offence and at the same time we are con­strained to observe that the pro­sec­u­tion miser­ably failed to prove the case against the accused for the prin­cipal offence bey­ond reas­on­able doubt which is a golden rule that runs through the web of crim­inal jur­is­pru­dence,” the court noted.

The court noted that the case would have reached a diŒerent con­clu­sion had the invest­ig­a­tion and the pro­sec­u­tion been con­duc­ted by trained police. The court poin­ted out how the FIR stated that pro­sec­u­tion wit­nesses had never known the accused from before and were never made to identify them through a test identification parade (TIP).

Source: https://www.pressreader.com/india/the-hindu-international-9BN2/20251031/281857239779721

Andhra Pradesh_Five sentenced to death for Chittoor Mayor, husband’s murder in 2015

31 Oct 2025, 10:55 am

A court in Chittoor had convicted the five accused in the sensational murder case. Then Chittoor Mayor Anuradha and her husband Katari Mohan, a TDP leader, were brutally murdered on November 17, 2015.

Former Chittoor Mayor Katari Anuradha and her husband Katari MohanTwitter/Karthigaichelvan_S

The five convicts in the sensational 2015 murder case of then Mayor Katari Anuradha and her husband Katari Mohan, a TDP leader, have been sentenced to death. The Chittoor XI Additional District and Sessions Judge N Srinivasa Rao pronounced the order on Friday, October 31. Sriram Chandra Sekhar alias Chintu, Venkatachalapathi, Jaya Prakash Reddy, Manjunath and Venkatesh have been sentenced to death.

Last week, the court had convicted them in the sensational case. Then Chittoor Mayor Anuradha and her husband Katari Mohan were brutally murdered on November 17, 2015. The main accused Sriram Chandra Sekhar alias Chintu is the nephew of Katari Mohan, who was the vice-president of Telugu Desam Party’s Chittoor district unit. Personal, financial and political disputes between Katari Mohan and his nephew were found to have led to the gruesome double murder. An armed gang attacked the couple inside the Chittoor Municipal Corporation office. Anuradha was shot dead inside her chamber, while Mohan was chased and stabbed when he tried to flee. The double murder in broad daylight had sent shockwaves across the state.

The court was to announce the quantum of punishment on October 30 but the same was deferred citing procedural reasons. The convicts were brought to the court amid tight security, with police enforcing a three-tier cordon around the premises due to the sensitive nature of the case. Initially, 23 people were named accused in the case. One of the accused Kasaram Ramesh was discharged by the court while another accused S Srinivasa Chary died during the trial. Out of the remaining 21 accused, five were convicted. The charges against 16 other accused for sheltering the killers and providing them money and weapons could not be proved due to lack of evidence. They were acquitted by the court. During the trial, the court examined 122 witnesses. Two of the five convicts have been in jail since their arrest while three others were on bail.

Extra-Judicial Confession Unreliable Without Independent Corroboration; Supreme Court Acquits Death Row Convict In Child Rape-Murder Case

The case arose from the conviction of a man for the alleged rape and murder of a four-year-old girl in Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. The prosecution asserted that on the day of the incident, the accused accompanied the child and her aunt to a marriage ceremony. He later informed the aunt that he had taken the child home; however, she did not return. Several days later, the accused allegedly confessed to the crime, stating that he had left the body in a sugarcane field. The police registered an FIR and commenced investigation, during which articles belonging to the child were recovered from the indicated location.

The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the child’s father, relatives, and local witnesses who claimed to have last seen the accused with the victim. The medical officer who performed the post-mortem reported that the body was decomposed and partially eaten by animals, making it difficult to ascertain cause or time of death. The investigating officer recorded the accused’s confession and conducted recoveries based on his disclosure. The defence did not adduce oral evidence. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing to guilt. The High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the findings, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that the alleged confession was inconsistent, and that the investigation lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. The case turned primarily on the evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confession, the last-seen theory, and the reliability of the forensic report.

The Supreme Court observed that the conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and the accused’s extra-judicial confession. It stated: “In the considered view of this Court, the conviction of the accused by the Courts below is based on improper appreciation of evidence on record and in correct appreciation of settled principles of law resulting in the travesty of justice.” The Bench recorded that the accused’s conduct did not appear suspicious, as he had actively participated in search efforts for several days after the incident. It noted: “It is improbable that a person who killed ‘X’ would have been there all along, as a search party looking for her. None suspected him.” The Court further stated that no missing report was filed for several days, despite witnesses claiming to have seen the accused last with the child, and that this omission cast doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution story. The Court observed: “These circumstances make us doubt the genesis of the prosecution story as also the veracity of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies.” It recorded that the extra-judicial confession was surrounded by “different versions” regarding where it took place—some witnesses claimed it occurred at the marriage hall, others at a tube well, and another in a field—which “does not inspire confidence in the testimony of these witnesses.”

On the recovery of the body and articles, the Court stated: “No single independent witness is adjoined or examined in support of the confession or consequent recovery.” It observed that this omission was serious, particularly when the entire case rested on that recovery. Regarding forensic evidence, the Court noted: “The report has miserably failed to link the accused with the crime… there is no testing undertaken to compare the blood found on the clothes of the deceased with the blood of the accused-appellant.” The Bench further stated: “Conviction cannot be based solely on last-seen theory.” It recorded that even the last-seen circumstance was doubtful due to contradictions in witness statements. Summing up, the Court observed: “Though the offence in question strikes at the human conscience, the evidence brought by the prosecution is not clear and unimpeachable, pointing towards the guilt of the accused alone.”

The Supreme Court directed: “The conviction of the accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC is set aside. The impugned order dated 26th July, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad… which confirmed the judgment and order dated 21st September, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.16, Bulandshahar… is quashed and set aside.” “The accused-appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in another detention order.” “As the mercy petition of the petitioner has been rejected by the President of India, the present petition has been rendered infructuous… we dismiss this petition as having become infructuous.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner(s): Dr. S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Subramaniam, Adv. Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V.Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Deepak Goel, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kumar Abhinandan, Adv. Ms. Apurva Mahndiyan, Adv. Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv. Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.

Case Title: Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 317

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2025

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta

Source: https://24law.in/story/extra-judicial-confession-unreliable-without-independent-corroboration-supreme-court-acquits-death

Kerala HC awards life term to father, stepmom for minor girl’s death (Summary)

October 30, 2025.

The Kerala High Court has sentenced a father and his stepmother to life imprisonment for the 2013 death of five-year-old Adhithi Namboothiri, ruling that their prolonged and severe cruelty led to her death. The bench convicted Subramanian Namboodiri and Ramla Begum (Devaki Antharjanam) after overturning an earlier trial court judgment that had convicted them of lesser offences and acquitted them of murder and attempted murder. The prosecution presented evidence of sustained physical and mental abuse, including beatings, denial of food, forced labor, and pouring boiling water on the child. Although prosecutors sought the death penalty, the High Court held there was no justification to deviate from life imprisonment. A fine of ₹2 lakh each was also imposed, to be paid to the girl’s brother; failure to pay will result in six months’ rigorous imprisonment for each.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/hc-awards-life-term-to-father-stepmom-for-minor-girls-death/articleshow/124965748.cms

SC issues notice on plea seeking compensation for wrongful conviction of man acquitted after 12 years, 6 on death row

BY India News Newsdesk: October 28, 2025

New Delhi, Oct 28 (IANS) The Supreme Court has issued notice to the state of Maharashtra on a plea seeking compensation for wrongful conviction and incarceration of a man who spent 12 years in prison, six of them on death row, before being acquitted earlier this year. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice on the writ petition filed by Ramkirat Munilal Goud, who was acquitted by the apex court on May 7, 2025.

The Justice Vikram Nath-led Bench also directed that notice be issued to the Attorney General and Solicitor General, the highest and second-highest law officers of the Union, to assist it in the matter. The apex court further tagged two similar petitions filed by ex-death row convicts, Kattavellai @ Devakar and Sanjay, seeking compensation.

Goud’s petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution detailed a harrowing account of wrongful arrest, fabricated evidence, and tainted investigation that led to his conviction by a Special POCSO Court in Thane on March 5, 2019, and the subsequent confirmation of his death sentence by the Bombay High Court on November 25, 2021. The Supreme Court, while acquitting him in May 2025, had made scathing observations on the conduct of the police and prosecution. The apex court found that key witnesses “were created by the investigation agency for ulterior motive”.

It also held that Goud was illegally arrested on October 3, 2013, noting that “there was no material on the investigation file so as to even cast a minimal suspicion against the accused appellant. The Investigating Officers did not even possess the barest evidence which could have pointed a finger of suspicion towards the accused appellant. Thus, the very foundation for arresting the appellant in this case is lacking”. The plea stated that the petitioner endured six years on death row and was released only on May 19, after spending twelve years in prison without ever receiving parole or furlough.

“The Petitioner’s children had never been able to visit him in prison,” the plea said, adding that upon his release, he found his family “living in a kaccha house, with plastic sheets for a roof”, having sold and mortgaged land and jewellery to pay for his legal expenses. “The petitioner, now aged 41 years, lost the prime years of his life due to a wrongful conviction, essentially induced by an unlawful and tainted investigation. These wrongs suffered by him on account of the officers of the respondent State of Maharashtra ought to be compensated so that he may restart his life and provide for his family,” the petition further stated.

Claiming a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21, the petition said that the government must be held strictly liable for the “illegal and tainted investigation, unfair prosecution, and fabricated evidence” that led to his wrongful conviction. “The mere release of the individual from incarceration is not sufficient to correct the wrong faced by him,” the petition contended, urging the Supreme Court to direct the state of Maharashtra to provide appropriate compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm. The petition on behalf of Goud was filed by advocates Mihir Samson and Yash S. Vijay, along with Square Circle Clinic, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium appeared for the petitioner, while senior advocates Gopal Sankarnarayanan and Anitha Shenoy represented the other two petitioners.

–IANS

Source: https://indianews.com.au/sc-issues-notice-on-plea-seeking-compensation-for-wrongful-conviction-of-man-acquitted-after-12-years-6-on-death-row/

Sentencing Inconsistency in Capital Punishment – A Flaw in the Scales of Justice

By Md. Imran Wahab

October 25, 2025

Sentencing Inconsistency and the Moral Crisis of Capital Punishment in India

The Uneasy Conscience of Capital Justice

Table of Contents

• The Uneasy Conscience of Capital Justice
• Introduction
• The Constitutional Imperative of Consistency – A Fragile Ideal
• Factors Contributing to Sentencing InconsistencyThe Lottery of Geography
• Racial Bias and Victim Characteristics
• Quality of Legal Representation
• Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining
• Ethical and Legal Implications of Inconsistency
• Efforts to Address Inconsistency and Their Limitations
• Reform Proposals
• The Inherent Flaw
• The ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine – Origins and Evolution
• Case Illustrations of Sentencing Inconsistency
• Structural Causes of Inconsistency
• Comparative Perspectives
• Conclusion

The Uneasy Conscience of Capital Justice:

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, has long remained one of the most divisive issues within modern criminal jurisprudence. Proponents uphold it as a deterrent to grave crimes and an instrument of retributive justice. Critics, however, view it as an irreversible, morally indefensible, and inconsistently applied form of punishment that risks executing the innocent.

In India, this moral and legal dilemma is amplified by the “rarest of rare” doctrine introduced in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), where the Supreme Court declared that the death penalty must be reserved only for cases in which life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed.” Despite this judicial restraint, capital sentencing continues to exhibit alarming inconsistency. The doctrine’s subjective interpretation, judicial discretion, and disparities in legal representation contribute to what many scholars call a “lottery of death.”

This arbitrariness has been recognized by the judiciary itself. In Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009), the Supreme Court lamented the absence of structured sentencing guidelines and called for a systematic assessment of both aggravating and mitigating factors. The Court’s concern remains poignant: when death is dispensed unevenly, the scales of justice tilt dangerously away from fairness.

At its heart, the problem lies in inconsistency—where two individuals convicted of similar crimes may face starkly different fates. Some are condemned to die; others live out their days in prison. Such disparity not only erodes the moral legitimacy of the justice system but also questions its constitutional promise of equality before the law.

The Constitutional Imperative of Consistency – A Fragile Ideal:

Sentencing inconsistency occurs when similar crimes committed under comparable conditions yield vastly different punishments. The principle of equal protection under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution demands that justice be consistent and impartial. Yet, capital punishment remains susceptible to personal bias, regional attitudes, and socio-economic disparity.

In Bachan Singh, the Supreme Court laid down a constitutional mandate of restraint, emphasizing individualized sentencing and a balance between aggravating and mitigating factors. However, the subjective interpretation of what constitutes the “rarest of rare” continues to yield varied outcomes.

For instance, two murder cases with similar brutality might be treated differently depending on the judge’s moral outlook or the region’s socio-political sentiment. Defendants represented by skilled lawyers often escape the death penalty through well-crafted mitigation, while the poor—lacking competent counsel—face execution.

The judiciary’s later interventions, particularly in Santosh Bariyar (2009), sought to rationalize sentencing through a “culpability test,” urging judges to evaluate mental state, motive, and potential for reform. Despite these efforts, inconsistency persists, leaving the death penalty’s moral and constitutional standing on fragile ground.

Factors Contributing to Sentencing Inconsistency:

The Lottery of Geography:

Geographical variation is a striking source of inconsistency. The probability of receiving a death sentence often depends more on where the crime occurred than what was done.

In one hypothetical example, a defendant in a conservative rural district may face zealous prosecutors and pro-death juries, leading to execution. A similar offender in a liberal urban area, benefiting from cautious prosecutors and better defense resources, may receive life imprisonment. This “death-belt phenomenon” underscores how regional culture and local politics distort uniform justice.

Racial Bias and Victim Characteristics

Racial Bias and Victim Characteristics:

Empirical studies reveal a troubling correlation between race and capital sentencing. Cases involving white victims are significantly more likely to attract death sentences. Similarly, minority defendants—particularly Black or Dalit individuals—face higher risks of capital punishment. This racialized dimension implies that the value placed on life in judicial proceedings can be unconsciously filtered through social and racial bias, contradicting the constitutional promise of equality.

Quality of Legal Representation:

Access to competent legal defense often determines whether a person lives or dies. Poor defendants relying on overburdened legal aid lawyers rarely see thorough investigations into mitigating factors like trauma, mental illness, or youth. Meanwhile, affluent defendants can assemble expert defense teams that humanize them before juries. This disparity turns justice into a privilege rather than a right, converting legal representation into a currency for survival.

Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining:

Prosecutors wield tremendous influence in deciding whether to seek the death penalty. This discretion—guided by political pressure, personal beliefs, or resource constraints—often results in uneven outcomes. Two equally culpable defendants may receive drastically different punishments solely based on a prosecutor’s decision to offer or withhold a plea bargain. Such arbitrariness, invisible to public scrutiny, undermines consistency and further politicizes death sentencing.

Ethical and Legal Implications of Inconsistency:

The moral and constitutional consequences of sentencing disparity are grave:

Violation of Equal Protection: Unequal treatment of similarly situated offenders violates Article 14’s guarantee of equality before the law. 

Arbitrariness as Cruelty: The U.S. Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia (1972) struck down death sentences imposed capriciously, deeming such randomness cruel and unusual punishment. The same reasoning resonates in India’s context.

Erosion of Public Confidence: When justice depends on geography or wealth, public trust crumbles. The legitimacy of the judiciary is rooted not only in law but also in perceived fairness.

Moral Injustice: That life or death might hinge on one’s caste, region, or the competence of counsel is ethically indefensible. It transforms justice from a principle into a gamble.

Efforts to Address Inconsistency and Their Limitations:

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

In State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008), the Supreme Court insisted on balancing the nature of the offence with the offender’s circumstances. Yet, judges continue to apply these factors unevenly, influenced by personal philosophy and public sentiment. 

Proportionality Review: Following Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983), which invalidated mandatory death sentences under Section 303 IPC (now superseded by Section 104 BNS), proportionality became integral to sentencing. However, India lacks institutional mechanisms to systematically compare capital cases for proportionality as some U.S. states do. The absence of this inter-case review prevents checks on judicial subjectivity.

Improved Indigent Defense: While Mohd. Hussain v. State (2012) recognized that poor representation violates the right to a fair trial, underfunded legal aid systems still fail to safeguard the most vulnerable.

Categorical Exemptions: Judicial and legislative developments have exempted certain categories—juveniles and the intellectually disabled—from execution. The decision in Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra (2023) reaffirmed this humane evolution. Yet, broader inconsistencies remain untouched. 

Persistent Limitations: Despite these reforms, human discretion—of judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys—continues to dictate outcomes. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bablu (2014), the Court called for legislative sentencing guidelines, yet none have been enacted.

Reform Proposals:

Meaningful reform demands systemic overhaul rather than case-by-case correction. Possible steps include: Establishing a National Sentencing Commission: To create structured, binding guidelines that minimize judicial subjectivity. 

Mandatory Sentencing Reports: Courts should transparently justify why the death penalty is chosen over life imprisonment.

Judicial Training: Continuous education on implicit bias, proportionality, and human rights norms.

Public Transparency: Periodic publication of sentencing data to encourage scrutiny and accountability.

The Inherent Flaw: Despite repeated judicial interventions, the death penalty in India remains an inconsistent, unpredictable, and morally fraught institution. The uneven application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine exposes deep fissures in the justice system, revealing how geography, class, and bias often outweigh culpability.

This “lottery of death,” where human life depends on arbitrary factors rather than consistent principles, corrodes the foundations of justice. While structured sentencing and accountability mechanisms may mitigate the problem, they cannot eliminate its essence—human fallibility.

Ultimately, the very impossibility of ensuring uniformity and fairness in such an irreversible punishment strengthens the moral and constitutional argument for abolition. A justice system worthy of trust must aspire not to vengeance, but to fairness, dignity, and redemption. 

The ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine – Origins and Evolution:

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): Death penalty to be imposed only when life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate.

Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): Expanded on Bachan Singh, identifying aggravating and mitigating circumstances but leaving much to judicial discretion.

Case Illustrations of Sentencing Inconsistency:

These examples reveal how mental health, delay, political context, and public sentiment influence outcomes beyond the scope of the crime itself.

Structural Causes of Inconsistency:

Judicial subjectivity in interpreting “rarest of rare.”

Absence of codified sentencing guidelines.

Socioeconomic bias in representation.

Political and public pressures in high-profile cases.

Comparative Perspectives:

United States: Deep regional disparities; race and prosecutorial discretion shape sentencing.

United Kingdom: Abolished capital punishment; consistency ensured through statutory sentencing guidelines.

India: Retains death penalty sparingly but inconsistently, despite judicial caution.

Conclusion:

Sentencing inconsistency in capital punishment reveals the fragility of human judgment when tasked with deciding between life and death. Until the system can guarantee uniform fairness—which history and human nature suggest it cannot—the moral legitimacy of capital punishment will remain in doubt. The scales of justice, when unevenly weighted by bias and chance, cannot claim to deliver true justice.

About the author: Md. Imran Wahab, a distinguished 2004-batch Indian Police Service officer, has dedicated over 32 years to public service, holding various senior managerial positions within the West Bengal Police force. His career has spanned diverse roles across different districts, including Kolkata Police, serving as DCP, 5th Battalion, Kolkata Armed Police and DCP (Port Division), for approximately 4 years. He served in Barrackpore Police Commissionerate, holding the positions of DCP (Special Branch) and DCP (Traffic) for over 4 years. He was posted in the districts of Dakshin Dinajpur and Nadia as Additional SP. At the sub-divisional level, he has worked as SDPOs of Gangarampur, Raghunathpur and Kalna sub-divisions of West Bengal. His tenure as Special IG and subsequently as IGP of Correctional Services, West Bengal, for over 4 years, saw him deeply engaged in improving the prison and correctional system. He visited numerous correctional homes across West Bengal, interacting with inmates, both male and female, including children residing with their incarcerated mothers. His outreach extended to correctional homes in Assam, Bihar, and Tripura. This hands-on approach provided him with invaluable insights into the workings of prisons and the complexities of the prisoner psyche. Beyond his operational roles, Md. Imran Wahab possesses a strong academic background, holding B.Sc., M.A., L.L.B., and M.B.A. degrees. He has also completed Post Graduate Diplomas in Human Rights, Project Management, Corporate Management, Computer Application, Public Administration, Medical Law, Disaster Management, Fire Safety & Hazards Management and Psychology. He has attended Indian government sponsored specialized training in police and management matters in SVPNPA, Hyderabad, IIM, Ahmedabad and Singapore. He is the author of the books 'Police Investigation & Allied Matters' and 'Alternative Dispute Resolution: Evolving Trends and Innovations' demonstrating his commitment to knowledge sharing within the law enforcement field. As an observer for the Election Commission of India, he has gained firsthand experience in conducting assembly elections and bye-elections in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Assam, Bihar, and Tripura (twice). This exposure has given him a deep understanding of election management and the Election Commission's operations. He has also served as Chairman and as a member of various recruitment boards for the selection of police personnel in Kolkata Police and West Bengal Police. Md. Imran Wahab's interests extend beyond law enforcement to include law, politics, international affairs, prison management, and business management. He has authored over 1000 articles on these diverse topics, reflecting his intellectual curiosity and desire to contribute to public discourse. He is also a research scholar in law and has contributed articles to the Indian Police Journal, National Crime Record Bureau Journal, SVP National Police Academy Journal, and International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research etc. Currently, he serves as IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal.

Source: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/Legal-Articles/sentencing-inconsistency-in-capital-punishment-a-flaw-in-the-scales-of-justice/

Dignity In Death: India’s Urgent Need For Penal Reform – OpEd

October 24, 2025

By K.S. Venkatachalam

The Supreme Court of India’s recent observation that it is prepared to review the validity of death by hanging as a mode of execution marks a crucial moment in the country’s criminal justice system.

For over four decades, India has continued to rely on this archaic and cruel method, despite the advancement of medical science and the growing global consensus that hanging inflicts unnecessary pain and suffering. It is time for India to end this outdated practice and adopt a more humane, less painful method of execution—if the death penalty must be retained at all.

The method of hanging was adopted during British colonial rule and has remained unchanged since India’s independence. According to Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “when any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead.” This procedure was accepted as the most “effective” method of execution at the time. However, what may have been acceptable in the 19th century has no justification in the 21st century. The progress of science, medicine, and human rights standards now demands that India re-examine this method and the pain it inflicts.

Death by hanging is often assumed to cause an instant and painless death, but it can be a prolonged and agonizing process. If the drop is too short, the condemned person dies slowly from strangulation, which can last several minutes. If the drop is too long, it can result in decapitation gruesome and undignified outcome. Even when the drop is calculated correctly, there is immense suffering during the process. Studies in forensic medicine have shown that hanging can cause extreme neck fractures, spinal cord damage, and asphyxiation, often accompanied by involuntary body movements and convulsions.

The very spectacle of hanging is barbaric and incompatible with the ideals of human dignity enshrined in India’s Constitution. Article 21 guarantees every individual the right to life and personal liberty, and by judicial interpretation, this includes the right to die with dignity. If the state must take a life through a court-ordered sentence, it bears the moral and legal duty to do so in a manner that is as painless and dignified as possible.

Across the world, nations have been abandoning hanging as a mode of execution. In the United States, forty-nine out of fifty states that retain the death penalty have shifted to lethal injection, considering it a more humane method. Countries such as Japan, Singapore, and Iran still use hanging, but they have faced strong criticism from international human rights organizations. Even in countries where the death penalty remains legal, there has been a consistent effort to minimize the pain and suffering involved in the process. Most of the countries in Europe have abolished as enshrined both in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of Human rights.

The United Nations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party, emphasize that executions, if carried out, must not involve torture, cruelty, or inhuman treatment. Hanging clearly fails this test. Modern technology offers alternatives such as lethal injection, nitrogen hypoxia, or even the firing squad—methods that, while still debatable, are considered quicker and less painful.

India’s continuation of hanging as a method of execution stands in sharp contrast to its image as a modern, progressive democracy that values human rights. The moral argument is straightforward: even when the state executes an individual convicted of the most heinous crimes, it should not do so in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering. The purpose of capital punishment, if retained, is justice —not vengeance. Subjecting a human being to a painful and degrading death undermines the very principles of justice that the punishment seeks to uphold.

Furthermore, the Indian Law Commission in its 262nd report (2015) had already recommended the abolition of the death penalty for all crimes except terrorism-related offenses. Even that report stressed that the method of execution must be re-examined to ensure it meets the constitutional standard of dignity and non-cruelty. The Supreme Court’s willingness to review the validity of hanging provides a much-needed opportunity for reform. India must constitute a scientific committee comprising medical experts, forensic scientists, and human rights specialists to assess various execution methods and recommend one that is least painful and most consistent with human dignity. Lethal injection, though not perfect, has been widely adopted for this reason. Other methods such as nitrogen hypoxia, which induces unconsciousness before death, may also be explored.

The most humane approach would be to move toward the complete abolition of the death penalty. But until that goal is realized, India must at least ensure that executions are carried out in a manner that reflects compassion and respect for human life.

Conclusion

The persistence of death by hanging in India is a cruel relic of colonial times that has no place in a modern democracy. It is physically brutal, psychologically traumatic, and morally indefensible. The state cannot claim to uphold human dignity while executing citizens in such a barbaric fashion. If justice must be served through the death penalty, it should be done with the minimum possible suffering. The Supreme Court’s review offers India a historic opportunity to align its penal practices with the principles of humanity, dignity, and modernity. Hanging must end as it is rooted in retributive justice and denies the possibility of redemption. After all justice should uplift rather than mirror the crime. As Mahatma Gandhi beautifully put it “ An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

K.S. Venkatachalam

K.S. Venkatachalam is an independent columnist based in Bengaluru, India. He writes on public policy, politics, and socio-economic issues for various national and international publications.

Decades Behind Bars: Rajoana's Plea for Mercy

Devdiscourse News Desk| Patiala | India

Updated: 24-10-2025 21:22 IST | Created: 24-10-2025 21:22 IST

Balwant Singh Rajoana, on death row for the assassination of Punjab chief minister Beant Singh, seeks a decision on his mercy petition after nearly 30 years in prison. The Supreme Court has prompted the Centre to act on his plea, pending for 14 years.

Balwant Singh Rajoana (file photo)

Balwant Singh Rajoana, convicted for the assassination of Punjab's chief minister Beant Singh in 1995, is pleading for a resolution to his long-pending mercy petition. Rajoana, who has spent nearly 30 years in prison, with 19 of those on death row, has gained attention from the highest legal authorities.

Recently, the Supreme Court asked why a decision on his case has not been made, despite acknowledging the crime's serious nature. Rajoana's plea for commutation of his sentence to life imprisonment hinges on the argument of prolonged delay by the government in deciding on his mercy plea, a petition first filed in 2012.

The Supreme Court had earlier sought responses from the central and state authorities regarding Rajoana’s situation. The case's latest developments add to the contentious legal and political discourse surrounding capital punishment and justice system delays in India.

(With inputs from agencies.)

Source: https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3673468-decades-behind-bars-rajoanas-plea-for-mercy?amp

Man sentenced to death by Assam court for killing wife, daughter with axe

PTI 

23 October, 2025 06:03 pm IST

Barpeta, Oct 23 (PTI) A court in Assam’s Barpeta district gave the death penalty to a man for killing his wife and daughter.

Sessions Judge Deepak Thakuriya convicted Rishav Das for killing his wife, Binita, and daughter, Hiya, with an axe, and pronounced the sentence on Wednesday.

Rishav Das

In October 2023, Das, who ran a shop in the Gandhinagar area of Barpeta town, had attacked his wife and daughter.

Eyewitnesses claimed that there was an altercation among them over a dispute.

In a fit of rage, the person had attacked his wife and daughter with an axe, and they both had died on the spot.

Eight years ago, Das had attacked his sister and cut her fingers. PTI COR TR TR SOM

This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. The Print holds no responsibility for its content.

Source: https://theprint.in/india/man-sentenced-to-death-by-assam-court-for-killing-wife-daughter-with-axe/2769359/?amp

Agra - Two sentenced to death for minor girl’s gangrape and murder

Published on: Oct 17, 2025 03:32 am IST

On March 18, 2024, the father of the five-and-a-half-year-old girl had lodged a complaint at Bah police station stating that his daughter went missing after she had gone to play near the canal. The Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Agra, on Thursday, awarded death sentence to two accused for the kidnapping, gangrape and murder of a five-and-a-half-year-old minor girl last year. The Judge Sonika Chaudhary pronounced the judgement in a matter for which a case was registered on March 19, 2024, at Bah police station of Agra.

The co-accused, namely Amit from village Farera and Nikhil from village Holipura, both within the limits of Bah police station of Agra, were booked under section 363/34 (kidnapping by group), 364A/34 (kidnapping placing danger of death), 377/34 (carnal intercourse against the order of nature), 376DB (gangrape with a woman under 12 years of age), 302/34 (murder by several persons), 201/34 (causing disappearance of evidence), and relevant sections of the POCSO Act, informed Subhash Giri, the additional district govt counsel (ADGC) Pocso Court.

On March 18, 2024, the father of the five-and-a-half-year-old girl had lodged a complaint at Bah police station stating that his daughter went missing after she had gone with a 6-year-old boy living nearby to play near the canal. The boy returned, but the girl did not. A case for kidnapping was registered against unidentified individuals at Bah police station, but based on investigation, two boys, Amit and Nikhil, were named in the case and arrested subsequently.

The dead body of the girl was recovered based on clues given by the arrested accused. The father of the victim girl alleged that the accused, before being arrested, called him to pay ₹6 lakh if they wanted his daughter back. During the investigation, it surfaced that the victim was last seen with the accused on a motorcycle by locals, which proved to be decisive in the conviction. The Court held the crime in the category of ‘rarest of rare’ and awarded death sentences to both accused for gangrape, murder, kidnapping, and also under relevant sections of the POCSO Act, informed Subhash Giri.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/two-sentenced-to-death-for-minor-girl-s-gangrape-and-murder-101760638512956.html

‘Jail within a jail’: Death row and the impact on mental health

By:Shreehari Paliath& IndiaSpend

13 Oct, 2025

“I was once a professional and a free mind. Now I am not,” says Asif Khan who was on death row and was acquitted in the 7/11 Mumbai blasts case. When Asif Khan was arrested in Belgaum in October 2006 in connection to the Mumbai blasts in July of that year, he did not think it would be the beginning of a 19-year prison ordeal involving physical torture, terrorism allegations and “mental torture”.

More than 800 people were injured and 187 died in seven blasts on Mumbai’s suburban trains on July 11, 2006. Khan, now 52, spent nearly a decade as an undertrial until 2015, when he was convicted and sentenced to death. He spent the last decade as a death row convict in Pune’s Yerwada Central Prison. His co-accused Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, now 43, also spent 19 years – with the last decade as a death row prisoner in Nagpur’s Central Prison. Khan, Siddiqui and 10 other co-accused were acquitted on July 21, 2025. The Bombay High Court’s order was stayed by the Supreme Court that same week, but the 12 men remain free–the Maharashtra government wanted the Bombay High Court judgement stayed because it could affect pending trials.

India is one of 55 countries that allow the death penalty for ordinary crimes. According to Project 39A’s (now The Square Circle Clinic) death penalty data, there were 564 people living under a sentence of death in India at the end of 2024. In 90 percent of all death penalty sentences in 2024, trial courts imposed it in the absence of adequate information about the accused, IndiaSpend reported. While sentencing without adequate information is a serious concern, the immediate and long term impact is faced by prisoners facing long incarceration including those on death row who are affected mentally and physically. As Khan and Siddiqui slowly reconnect with life outside prison, recurring memories of custodial violence, dehumanisation, prison surveillance and lack of privacy are interlaced with bouts of anxiety and depression. The trauma of coping in the phansi (gallows) yard remains etched deep in their psyche.

Agony and trauma of death sentencing

On September 11, 2015, on the 14th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the US, a Mumbai special court found 12 of the 13 accused in the 2006 Mumbai blasts guilty. The heavy police bandobast during the short drive from Mumbai’s Arthur Road jail to the court, and the prison staff’s behaviour the previous day, was unusual enough to indicate the possibility of a guilty verdict, they recalled. “Once [declared] guilty I was certain that I would be given the death sentence due to the charges against me. It was distressing,” said Siddiqui. Nineteen days later, on September 30, Siddiqui and Khan were among the five sentenced to death while seven others were given life imprisonment. Khan had to console his brother in court after the verdict. He had not wanted his family to be present at the sentencing because he feared the worst. “Despite the unfortunate circumstances, none of us broke down,” he recalled. “We knew we were innocent.”

Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, 43, completed 22 courses during his incarceration and authored a book on his incarceration.

“...we have found that intense mental agony and trauma sets in from the moment a person is sentenced to death,” said Maitreyi Misra, director of Mental Health and Criminal Justice at The Square Circle Clinic, in NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. IndiaSpend has reported on the high proportion of undertrials, long incarceration, delay in bail and onerous bail conditions and the impact on mental well-being. Despite multiple judgements on these issues and the often-repeated legal principle of ‘Bail is the rule, jail is an exception’, undertrial prisoners remain in jail years after their arrest without the commencement of trial, like those accused in the CAA/NRC protests or in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case

Phansi yard, a ‘jail’s jail’

The phansi yard is a high security zone where prisoners charged under serious offences or those sentenced to death are imprisoned in separate cells, often in solitary confinement. Cells are opened for a few hours each day in the morning and afternoon. “Phansi yard is a jail’s jail,” said Khan, where there is more scrutiny on prisoners than usual. “When a prisoner has to be punished, they put them in the phansi yard. It’s strict.” Prison regimens can be exhausting. Life is a set of harsh routines and repetition governed by prison norms–such as the dampness of the colonial-era walls during the monsoon, and the harsh summers without a fan; or the recurrent disproportionate use of hing (asafoetida) in the food, probably to add a semblance of flavour, Khan recalled.

Asif Khan, 52, with his mother Husna Bano at home in Jalgaon, Maharashtra. He worked as a civil engineer in Mumbai before his arrest in 2006.

The two thick kambals (blankets) became part of Khan’s prison life where the periodic sound of the duty guards' heavy boots and the prison clock indicated the slow passage of time. Siddiqui used wet blankets on the wall during summer to cope with the heat, and placed layers of newspaper under the blanket to keep warm in winter. “Ceiling fans were fixed in 2019 after we complained about having to use kambal in summer. But it also protected us from mosquitos,” said Khan.

There were often times when it was “mental torture”. He recalled sandbag tests done by jail authorities on the gallows, and the routine sound of the shutter trap opening, as traumatic. “I can still sense the phansi gate sound,” said Khan. It didn’t help that prison staff, within earshot of the inmates, spoke of unnecessary delays in executing death row prisoners.

During Khan’s time in Yerwada, the red LED on the surveillance camera was a constant reminder that even in his 10x10 cell, he was under constant scrutiny. Finally free, and reunited with his family in Jalgaon, he is iteratively shedding the fear of surveillance. “I was once a professional and a free mind. Now I am not. There is fear that someone will reprimand me,” he said.

In contrast, Siddiqui preferred solitary confinement, despite it being unconstitutional before the rejection of mercy petition by the President, during much of his incarceration. Alone in his cell most of the time, he spent 19 years focused on his education. It was a distraction, he said--safer, and one of the ways to cope with prison’s structural brutality. By 2025, he had completed 22 courses, including two bachelor's and three master’s of arts degrees, an MBA, three diplomas, and 13 certificate courses. He is expecting to complete a law degree soon.

When Siddiqui reached Nagpur Central Jail in October 2015, there was a palpable sense of fear and worry in the yard because Yakub Memon, who had been convicted for the 1993 Mumbai blasts, had been executed a few months earlier. Although there are guidelines to prevent prison suicides, they are not uncommon. The phansi yard is no exception, despite being a high-security zone. There were two suicides in Yerwada’s phansi yard after Khan was lodged, in 2016 and 2023. He recalled interacting with Jitendra Babulal Shinde who was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a minor girl. Initially, Shinde was of a “jolly” disposition; Khan often advised him on legal issues. But he slowly stopped speaking and withdrew and seemed frustrated.

The other was a death row convict who in 2016 killed himself within a few months of having a sentence of death passed on him. Siddiqui felt that because he was educated, he managed to cope and avoid the need for sedatives. But the period between 2017 and 2018 was “blank” for him because there was no clarity on the hearing of their case in the Bombay High Court. They were confined to their cells during this period, and all movement outside had been curtailed. Sunil Gupta is a former ​​jailor and legal advisor of Tihar jail, and the author of Black Warrant – Confessions of a Tihar Jailer, the basis for a seven-episode Netflix series. Gupta said that while there are suicides of death row prisoners, it is first time offenders or those wrongly incarcerated who are more susceptible. Even after three decades as a jailor, he experienced a “negative” feeling while entering a jail.

Mental toll and coping

Siddiqui’s family lives in Uttar Pradesh’s Jaunpur. He had only been married for seven months at the time of his arrest. Mulakats [meeting with family] in prison were rare due to the distance--it would take the family close to 18 hours by train. And when it did happen, it was difficult. “I used to tell them not to cry because it would break me.” When he yearned for freedom from Nagpur’s jail, it was the fragrances of phansi yard’s garden and amidst the peepal and mango trees, and the view of the sky through the metal net overhead which brought relief. Letters became a source of consolation. But writing in Urdu and the prison’s scrutiny and censorship created its own bureaucratic delays and constraints. “My family has preserved my letters. I avoided writing about my torture or troubles in jail.”

Khan, who tried to stay “positive” through prayers, exercise and yoga, too relied on letters which would come from different family members in one envelope. The police verification and clearance, and the long wait for a short 30-minute mulakat, felt like harassment. “I felt bad for my family, particularly the children who would be upset and cry.” In 2011, four years before his sentence, Khan’s father died of cancer. He was a mechanic who had worked hard to put Khan and his brother through school and college. “It hurt a lot to not be around for him when he needed me the most,” said Khan. “When I interacted with young misguided men in jail, I worried about my three children, their education and the environment they were growing up in [without me].”

While Khan has accessed treatment for his physical health since his release, he has not sought mental health support. “Capital punishment shows us at our worst as a civilisation. We are inflicting mental and physical torment,” said Yug Mohit Chaudhry, defense lawyer in the case and a death penalty abolitionist. According to Project 39A’s Deathworthy report, 62% of the 82 death row prisoners whose clinical enquiry for mental health diagnosis was undertaken were diagnosed with at least one mental illness. Current episodes of mental illnesses such as Major Depressive Disorder, Persistent Depressive Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Substance Use Disorder were found to be the most prevalent among the prisoners.

The analysis indicates that death row prisoners are at a higher risk of poor mental health, said Misra, lead author of the report. “It is not uncommon for prisoners who have been sentenced to death to imagine their own hanging, and to dream about it,” said Misra. “And in reality, very few of them are identified or properly addressed, or even the vulnerability recognised in law.” Gupta agreed that it was not unusual to find a death sentence convict to be depressed. “Death row prisoners whose mercy petition is rejected are tense.”

Sedatives rather than support

IndiaSpend had reported about the severe resource issues in prisons and its impact on the mental health of prisoners. Multiple studies conducted between 2011 and 2014 show that the prevalence of mental illness in various state prisons ranged from 24% to 82%--at least 10 times higher than the official prison data for 2023. The usual practice is to give sedatives to prisoners instead of addressing the mental health concern, said Khan, who avoided sedatives due to his worry about getting addicted. There were many moments where he felt depressed; he coped through prayers and yoga to remain "positive". “I’ve heard prisoners scream in the middle of the night and I think most death row prisoners cannot sleep without sleeping pills. They will lose their minds.”

One major issue is that the depression a prisoner feels and discusses impacts others. It was a reason that forced Siddiqui to limit his own interactions with other prisoners. “Sedatives do not address the mental issue [prisoners face] and provide temporary relief overnight, and there is no adequate focus on such problems,” he said. “I think the jail administration feels that once the court has sentenced a person to death, it is enough for them to provide only basics to keep the person alive [until execution].”

IndiaSpend has reported that two in three sanctioned posts for psychologists and psychiatrists in prisons were vacant in 2022--the highest since 2016. 2018 was the only year where more than 50% posts were filled. According to the 2023 prison data released in September, 63% of the sanctioned posts had not been filled, with Maharashtra--where Khan and Siddiqui were held--only filling three of the 21 posts. Twenty five of the 36 states and Union territories (UTs) did not have a sanctioned post for psychologist or psychiatrist. Prisons are designed to be ultra-male, macho environments where prisoners are expected to “man up”. There is no provision for psychiatrists, said Chaudhry. “We drug death row prisoners with sedatives. The test drops [using sandbags] done on the gallows are traumatic and haunting for them.”

Unless there is severe mental illness, the general duty medical officer treats prisoners, said Gupta. “When you do not have adequate psychiatrists [in jails], the medical officer will usually prescribe sleeping pills.” IndiaSpend has reported about intervention in some jails for mental health support and counseling in prisons. Peer support programmes have been found to be effective and useful in identifying or screening for mental illnesses or disorders among prisoners. But experts have said that governments must invest in prisons including mental health support and interventions and not look at prisoners' mental health as just a matter of medication and feeling better.

Aarti Jagannathan, faculty of psychiatric social work at National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, who has worked in Karnataka’s prisons developing peer support programmes for prisoners, said that prisoners trained in peer support can be an effective way to screen for mental health issues in all categories of prisoners. A study in Bengaluru central prison co-authored by Jagannathan showed that common mental disorders, substance use and suicidality were recognised and appropriately referred to by peer supporters. The peer supporters were selected from prisoners and trained over a period of time to screen prisoners for disorders and illness.

“Mental health referrals increased due to peer interaction,” said Jagannathan. “We found that peers offering the services improved their self confidence and felt valued for providing the support.” At the admission stage there is triaging, where social workers screen prisoners, peer supporters educate them, and refer them to the mental health team. A similar initiative in Delhi’s Tihar known as Gumsum panchayat provides peer support for identifying and referring prisoners who are quiet or depressed to a psychiatrist. But Gupta said that there needs to be more investment in mental health support in prisons. “States invest very little in prisons because jails do not provide votes.” “It requires structural and institutional changes including resourcing prisons to ensure effective care and a change in the centuries-old perspective that prisons embody,” added Misra.

Systemic neglect

On September 24, the Supreme Court had asked the Union government to decide on the mercy petition of Balwant Singh Rajoana, who has been on death row since 2007. According to media reports, his lawyer told the court that Rajoana may be suffering from “death row phenomenon” due to the trauma of delay in execution. The phenomenon has become an “unfortunate and distinctive feature of the death penalty apparatus in India”, said the 2015 Law Commission report. The combination of issues and the outlawed punitive practices that inflict “pain, agony and torture” can only be called “a living death”, the report said. According to the Supreme Court’s Centre for Research and Planning analysis, cases where a death penalty is imposed took two to five years at the appellate and other stages in the High Court and Supreme Court while the executive took more than 13 years to decide mercy petitions.

In the Shatrugan Chauhan case in 2013, the Supreme Court said that in some cases, death row prisoners lose their mental balance due to prolonged anxiety and suffering experienced on death row. There should be “regular mental health evaluation of all death row convicts and appropriate medical care should be given to those in need”. Similarly in Accused X in 2019, the court observed that the World Health Organization and the International Red Cross identify multiple circumstances such as overcrowding, various forms of violence, enforced solitude, lack of privacy, inadequate health care facilities, concerns about family etc., that can take a toll on the mental health of the prisoners. These issues were experienced by Khan and Siddiqui in their 19-year imprisonment.

Although the law commission in 2015 said that they do not see a “valid penological justification for treating terrorism differently from other crimes,” it recommended that the death penalty be abolished for crimes other than terrorism-related offences and waging war. This was a progression from the 1967 law commission recommendation which said that India could not risk the experiment of abolition of capital punishment in the present state. But states are reluctant to abolish it, according to an August 2018 Parliament response. Of 16 states which responded to the Law Commission report circulated by the Union government, Karnataka, Nagaland, Punjab and Tripura were the only states that said that the death penalty should be abolished. Delhi and Chandigarh too wanted it retained while Andaman & Nicobar, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep have said that they would abide by the decision of the Union government.

Prison manuals require routine assessment of mental health of death row inmates. According to the 2016 Model prison manual and state manuals (here and here), the prison officer in charge should carefully observe the behaviour of prisoners sentenced to death with special focus on his mental status. The notes of psychological observation kept by the jailor should be checked daily by the Superintendent, who should ensure that the data required for the compilation of the notes is collected by the Jailor in an intelligent manner and that the same have a factual base, it said. But Misra of The Square Circle Clinic was not sure if jailors or superintendents or even the medical officers were currently equipped to understand or note psychological observations. Often, the response to an aggressive prisoner would be to physically restrain them, or tie them up, as staff may not be trained to de-escalate.

“Our mental healthcare systems and understanding very much resemble techniques of coercive care employed in asylums of centuries past, not actual care,” said Misra. “There’s also public demand for death sentences and parts of the media sensationalise it,” said Chaudhry. “If the government wanted to, it could have abolished it like other countries that have, despite public pressure.”

Except Belarus (Russia has a moratorium), all European countries have abolished the death penalty. According to US based non-profit Death Penalty Information Center’s (DPI) data, the US--where 27 states have the death penalty--has executed 33 people since the beginning of the year 2025 and 1,640 since 1976. According to their website, the US Supreme Court has said that those with intellectual disabilities and severe men­tal ill­ness must not be executed. “While mental illness may be a factor in various respects before, during and after trial, none of the current mechanisms afford complete protection against the death penalty to those diagnosed with serious mental disorders or disabilities,” said the American Bar Association’s 2016 White paper on Severe Mental Illness and the Death Penalty.

Justice must be served

At home after his acquittal, Siddiqui realised that he was uncomfortable with people gathering around. Years in the enforced solitude of the cell had become a form of discipline. “I want to do multiple things, and a schedule is required so that everyone around me is also aware. These habits developed in jail. I was not as disciplined when I was younger [before the incarceration],” he said.

It is this focus and discipline that allowed Siddiqui to write Horror Saga, an account of his incarceration during his time in prison. He is expecting to complete a law degree soon and add to the 22 courses he has already completed. “Our policing system feels that any terror activity is usually done by Muslims. If it was not me, it would have been some other Muslim [person],” said Khan. A recent study by Common Cause and Lokniti - Centre for the Study Developing Societies on policing attitudes has shown bias against Muslims. It showed that more than 30% of police personnel in Delhi, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Gujarat and less than 3% in Punjab and Kerala thought Muslims were prone to commit crimes to a “great extent”.

While more robust systems need to be developed, Khan and Siddiqui feel that those wrongly incarcerated and released after years should be compensated without having to demand it from the government. The government should apologise and police officials who were involved should be held accountable. In July, the Supreme Court had asked the government to consider legislation for compensating wrongly incarcerated prisoners. Khan said that the it will take time to recover from the trauma of torture and incarceration. Despite the years in prison and the immense personal and financial loss, he was happy for his family’s support. “It was not just us, but those who were victims of the blast who also suffered,” said Siddiqui.

IndiaSpend has requested the home ministry and the departments of justice, legislation and legal affairs for their comments on mental health support for death row prisoners, human resource constraints, the abolition of the death penalty, and legislation around compensation for those wrongly incarcerated. The legislative department said that all related policy decisions will be taken by the home ministry. We will update if we receive a response from the other departments. If you are feeling suicidal or struggling with your mental health, help is at hand. Please reach out to a mental health professional or contact a helpline near you. 

This report is republished with permission from IndiaSpend, a data-driven, public-interest journalism non-profit. It has been lightly edited for style and clarity.

Source: https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/10/13/jail-within-a-jail-death-row-and-the-impact-on-mental-health