SMT. SHASHI NAYAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 29-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~· 
SMT. SHASHI NAYAR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 29, 1991 
A 
[K.N. SINGH, P.B.SAWANT. N.M. KAS~JWAL, 
B 
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND G.N.RAY, JJ.] 
' 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Writ petition by wife of 
condemned prisoner-Capital punishment-Justification of-Hanging by 
neck-Scientific and less painful. 
C 
Co11Stitution of India, 1950:Article 21-Death penal~warding-Not 
unconstitutional. 
The petitioner's husband was tried under Section 302, IPC for 
having killed his father and step brother. 
D 
The Sessions Judge convicted awarding sentence of death. 
On appeal, the High Court confirmed the death penalty against 
which a special leave petition before this Court was filed and same 
was also dismissed. 
E 
The Review Petition filed by him was also dismissed. 
His mercy petitions filed before the Governor of Jammu & 
Kashmir and the P·resident of India, were rejected. He challenged 
the order of the President of India rejecting the mercy petition F 
before this Court in a writ petition under. Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion, which was a!so dismissed. 
· 
Another writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution 
was filed before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court for quashing 
the sentence imposed on him. The High Court dismissed the same. 
G 
The husband of this petitioner, the condemned prisoner, was 
to be hanged on 26.10.1991. 
The petitioner, filed the present petition under Article 32 of 
the Constitution challenging the validity of the capital punishment H 
103 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
with a prayer for the quashing of the sentence awarded to her hus-
band. 
B 
c 
D 
The petition was entertained by a Division Bench on 25.10.91 
and the matter was referred to the Constitution Bench for consid-
eration staying the execution-of the condemned prisoner. 
Petitioner contended that capital punishment was violative of 
Article 21 ··of the Constitution of India as the Article absolutely 
prohibits deprivation of a person's life; that capital punishment did 
not serve any social purpose and the barbaric penalty of death should 
not be awarded to any person as it bad no deterrent effect; that the 
penalty of death sentence had a dehumanising effect on the close 
relations of the victims and it deprived them of their fundamental 
rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, to a meaningful. life; 
that the execution of capitai punishment by hanging was barbaric 
and dehumanising and it should be substituted by some other decent 
and less painful method in executing the sentence. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The capital punishment as provided by the law is to 
be awarded in rarest of the rare cases. The procedure established 
E 
by law for awarding the death penalty is reasonable and it does not 
in any way violate the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution. 
Hanging by neck was a scientific and one of the least painful meth-
ods of execution of the death sentence. [106 G, 107 F] 
2. The death penalty. .bs.s a deterrent effect and it does serve a 
F 
social purpose, having regard to the social conditions in our country 
the stage was not ripe for taking a risk of abolishing it. [107 c~DJ 
G 
H 
3. A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the law and 
order situation in the country bas not. only not improvided since 
1967 but has deteriorated over the years and is fast worsening to-
day. The present is, therefore, the most inopportune time to recon-
sider the law on the subject. [107 E] 
Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P.,[1973] 1 SCC 20; Bachan Singh v. 
State of Punjab, [1979] 3 SCC 727; Deena alias Deen Dayal & Ors. etc. 
etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc., [1983] 4 SCC 645, referred to. 
SHASIIlNAYAR v. U.0.1. [.K.N. SINGH, J.] 
105 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1339 of A 
1991. 
. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constimtion oflndia). 
R.K: Jain, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Udai Lalit, Shankar 
C. Ghosh and Ms. Chanchal Ganguli for the Petitioner. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.N. SINGH, J. Smt. Shashi Nayar wife of Raj Gopal Nayar who 
has been awarded death sentence for offence under Section 3j)2 of thf 
Indian Penal Code ['IPC' ·for short] has approached this Court by means 
of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the consti~ C 
tutional validity of death penalty. 
Raj Goapal Nayar, the petitioner's husband was tried for offence 
under Section 302, IPC for having killed hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.