Latest Supreme Court Case on Death Penalty: Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of U.P.

Mexican execution by firing squad, 1916.

Few days ago, the Apex court decided the curative petition filed by Navneet Kaur (Wife of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar). The court held that unexplained delay is one of the grounds for commutation of sentence of death into life imprisonment. Another case relating to death penalty was decided by the Supreme Court yesterday. This case involved gruesome murder of a 22 year old girl by name Diana Clare Routley (hereinafter referred to as “Diana”), a New Zealander, for which the trial Court awarded death sentence to the appellant, which was affirmed by the High Court.

The dead body of Diana was buried in the house of the accused after causing her death by way of strangulation. Subsequently, the Prosecution was successfully able to show that the skeleton recovered from the house of the accused was that of Diana and it was none other than the accused, who had strangulated Diana to death and buried the dead body in his house. Thus, the Supreme Court held that both the trial Court as well as the High Court have correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in this case and correctly recorded the conviction.

The next was question was whether the case falls under the category of rarest of the rare cases so as to award death sentence. It was contended that the accused had no previous criminal records and that apart from the circumstantial evidence, there is no eye-witness in the above case, and hence, the manner in which the crime was committed is not in evidence. Consequently, it was also said that it would not be possible for the Court to come to the conclusion that the crime was committed in a barbaric manner. The court finally held that due to lack of any evidence with regard to the manner in which the crime was committed, the case will not fall under the category of rarest of rare case. Thus, the court commuted the death sentence to life and awarded 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, over and above the period already undergone by the accused, without any remission.

Opinion

I agree with the reasoning of the court. However, it is noteworthy that in every case relating to death penalty, Supreme Court comes up with a different type of reasoning. There is no uniformity or standard yardstick to determine whether a case falls under the category of rarest of the rare cases or not. I find this to be very unamusing because of several reasons:

a. The onus of executing the sentence of death penalty lies with the government. Successive governments have failed to execute most of the death sentences. The governments gives various reasons such as unavailability of hangmen, delay in deciding mercy petition etc. In my opinion, these are good for nothing reasons. The government is simply rescuing itself from discharging its onerous responsibility.

b. The Honourable Supreme Court has itself given assorted views on death penalty at different points of time. There are tens of judgments that have laid down different jurisprudence from each other on this issue such as Bacchan Singh’s case, Jagmohan Singh’s case, Sangeet’s Case, Devender Pal Singh Bhullar’s case, the latest in the arsenal being the Shatrughan Singh Chauhan’s Case. After coming so far, it is really difficult (may be even impossible) for the court to undo the past doctrines completely and lay down a completely new and fresh set of guidelines. The courts can only build piles of judgments one over another, each taking something from the previous one and building its own castle of jurisprudence over death penalty.

c. The public aspiration and public perception over this issue has been quite hysterical. There are radical solutions available everywhere. Some want the Death Punishment to be available for more of the crimes such as rape etc. Others want to completely abolish death penalty based on their preconceptions relating to ethics and morality. No one wants to look at this issue in an objective manner. Media publishes both of the abovementioned views equally. However, it has completely failed to reconcile those views and reach a middle ground.

Following things could be done in this regard:

a. The government can give a fresh look to the matter. It can constitute a fresh body that presents a Bill proposing changes in the present laws relating to death penalty. Suggestions should be taken from all corners of the society.

b. Such a bill should be tabled in the Parliament. The legislature should review and discuss the laws relating to death penalty and pass appropriate amendment or changes at the earliest (something more uniform than the present state of things).

c. Till such changes come into force, the death penalty must be abolished for the time being as it is nothing less than torture for the present convicts who have been awarded death penalty. Lack of uniformity neither lets them live completely and freely nor lets them die at peace. However, Death Penalty should be and must be reintroduced after adequate check and balance mechanisms are in force.