Death Penalty in India: Should It Be Abolished ?

Introduction  

The death penalty is also known as Capital punishment, is one of the most  debated issues in India’s crimimal justice system . It refers to the legal process where a  person is sentenced to death by the court for committing a serious crime. It is only awarded  in the “rarest of rare cases”, a principle laid down by the Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab.  Even with these limits, one important question still remains: should the death penalty be  completely stopped in India? 

In this article, I will discuss the death Penalty in India and whether it should be abolished by  looking at cases like the R.G kar Medical College case and Sharon murder case. ? 

R.G kar Medical case and Sharon Raj murder case  

On January 22,2025, two separate murder convictions resulted in sharply  contrasting verdicts highlighting how the Indian court apply the death Penalty. While one  case led to capital punishment, the other saw the accused sentenced to life imprisonment,  reigniting questions about the Judiciary’s approach to the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine which till  now does not have a statutory definition. 

The one case is that on August 9, 2024 a female Post graduate trainee doctor was murdered  in Kolkata’s R.G kar Medical College. Civic Volunteer Sanjay Roy was arrested and  convicted on January 20, 2025 based on forensic evidence. However, the court ruled it was  not a ‘rarest of rare ‘ case and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On other hand, the  Sharon Raj murder case in Kerala, resulted in death Penalty. On October 14, 2022,  Greeshma poised her Partner Sharon Raj, leading to his death from organ failure from 11  days later. The Neyyattinkana court classified it as a ‘rarest of rare ‘cases, justifying capital  punishment . It has created lots of confusion because, people are expecting death penalty  into the R.G Kar Medical case and the people were saying and the nature of the crime was  heinous crime. Then why the judiciary has given the imprisonment of life as Punishment.  

Rarest of rare Doctrine Origin  

The debate on death penalty began in 1972 with Jagmohan Singh vs. State of  UP, where the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality. The petitioner argued that the 

death penalty violates fundamental rights under Article 19 and 14, as judges have no clear  guidance on when it to impose it. The court, however, ruled that sentencing considered all  relevant facts and affirmed its constitutionality under Article 21. In Bachan Singh vs. State  of Punjab, 1980, the Supreme Court introduced the rarest of rare doctrine, limiting the death  penalty to exceptional cases. However, it lacked clear definitions. In Machhi Singh vs. State  of Punjab, 1983, the court established five criteria for applying doctrine. 

• brutality of the crime.  
• depraved motive.  
• socially abhorrent nature.  
• magnitude of crime. And  
• victim’s vulnerability.  

So, we have to analyze that whether this case has created a negative impact and which kind  of impact on our society. By considering these all things, we have to analyze that whether  such kind of cases qualify for the death penalty or not. 

Judicial Revision and Evolving Standards of death penalty in India 

Despite of Machhi Singh framework, the Supreme Court in Mithu vs  State of Punjab, 1983, struck down Section 303 of the IPC (Section 104 of BNS) which  mandated the death penalty for life term prisoners committing murder, ruling it  unconstitutional under Article 14 and 21. Now, all murder cases falls under Section 302 of  IPC ( Section 103 (1) of BNS 2023), which allows either life imprisonment or death penalty.  In September 2022, the Supreme Court referred the constitutional bench the issue of  ensuring a “meaningful, real and effective” hearing on mitigating circumstances in death  penalty cases. This move could standardize how court access whether the crime qualifies  as rarest of rare at the trial stage, but the death penalty in India remains controversial due to  the lack of clear and universally accepted definition of rarest of rare, leaving significant room  for judicial discretion. 

Conclusion  

This article conclude that, we do have the criterias for the rarest of rare  doctrine, but that the criteria lacks clarity , transparency, so we need to maintain the clarity,  transparency, and there should be a clear idea or conceptual idea, so that we can apply to  those all things, and death penalty should not be limited to the judicial discretion.