LexDEENA@DEEN DAYAL ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
>
,,
>
DEENA@DEEN DAYAL ETC. ETC.
v •.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
September 23, 1983
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., R. s. PATHAK AND
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S. {54(5)-Exbition of death
sentence-Hanging by rope-Whether violative of Art. 21 ?
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 21-Execution of sentences lawfully
imposed-Mandate of Art. 21 is that sentence shall not be executed in a cruel,
barbarous or degradini manner.
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 21-Burden of proof-lf it ap/;ears that
a person is beingdperived of his life or personal liberty, the burden is on the
State to establish the constitutional validity of ilnpugned iaw.
Judicial Review-To pronounce upon constitutionality of law· is not
legislating even if su<h pronouncement involves value judgn1erit.
The petitioners who had beeil sentenced to death for the ~offence of
murder were awaiting execution of the sentence. Their plea Was that hanging
by rope is a cruel and barbarous 1nethod of executing the sentence and s. 354(5)
Cr. P.C. which prescribes that method is violative of Art. 21 of the Constitu-
tion
The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the question had
already been concluded by the decision in Bachan Singh v. State of·Punjab,
[1983] l S.C.R. 145. The objection was overruled.
Counsel for petitioners contended thats. 354(5), Cr. P.C. is bad because
it is impermissible to take human life even under the decree of a f;urt since
il is human to take life. under any circumstances; that by reason of the
provision contained in Art. 21, it is _impennissible to cauSe pain or suffering
of any killd whatsoever in the execution of any sentence, n1uch more so while
exe<;uting a death sentence; that the n1ethod of hanging prescribed by s. 354(5)
for e:>:ecuting the death sentence is barbarous, inhumt_1.n and degrading; that it
is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide for a humane and
dignified method for executing the death sentence. which does not involve
torture of .iny kind; and that if the method ~rescrib7d by s. 354(5) 'does not
meet this requirement, no death sentence can be executed since no other
method for executing that sentencd is prescribed by or is permissible under
the law. Counsel also referred to the judgment in Machhl Singh v. State of
Punjab, [1983] 3 S.C.C. 470 and suggested that it virtually overrules Bachan
Singh.
I
A
B
c
D
E
G
B
A
B
c
D
'.
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1984) I s.c.Ji.
•
Counsel for respondents conteflded that a sentenee lawfully imposed by
a court can and has to be ~xecuted, though by cau~ing the ieast pain and
suffering and by avoiding torture or degradation of any kind; that the method
prescribed bys. 354(5), Cr. P.C. for executing the death sentence is a humane
and dignified method involving the least amoUnt of pain and cruelty; that no
other method of executing 'the death sentence· is quiCker o'r less painful; and
that Art. 21 does not postulate that no pain-- or suffering whatsover shall be
caused in the execution_of a sentence Ia:-vfully imposed by a court, inciuding
the sentence of death. Courisel further submitted that ullless on the face of
it, the meth_od prescribed by for executing law a sentence is revolting to
conscience, courts must surrender their discretion to legislative judgment when
the challenge to the constitutionality of the law is based on consider.ltions
which the court is not equipped to evaluate by manageable judicial standards,
and contended ,that the court's evaluation of the method of hanging prescribed.
by law shall have to be inevitably subjective, almost to the point "Of being
legislative in charcter. which.must be avoided at aJI costs.
Dismis~ing th~ petitions, .
. ,,
HELD: l. The·method prescribed bys. 354(5), Cr. P.C. for executing
the ·death sentence does not violate the provision contaiiied in Art. 21 of the
Constitution. [59 El
(a) The material placed before the Court shows that hanging by rope
·•is not a cruel inode of executing the death sentence : the system consists of a
mechanism which is easy to as~emble ; preliminaries to the act are qujck and
simple and are free from anything th~t would un,necessarily sharpen the
poignancy of the prisoner's apprehension ; the chances of accident during the
course of hanging can safely be excluded ; tti.e 1nethod is quick and certain and
eliminates the possibility of a lingering death; unconsciousness supeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.