Tag: #offenses

IPC PROVISIONS FOR THE OFFENSES AGAINST THE SOCIETY AT LARGE

Posted on
S.noContents
1.Introduction
2.How crime is defined by society?
3.Analysis of crimes against the society
4.Recent developments
5.Conclusion

Introduction

A crime committed against society at large that puts society’s safety at risk is known as public tranquillity or offense against society. It is not necessary that an actual offence is committed towards society, even an apprehension is created in the mind of the public at large or society, even if an apprehension is created in the mind of the public at large or the society that they are under the threat of an offense or an action by any person would result in an injury to them is necessary enough to constitute to an offense against the society. These offenses are usually committed by individuals in a group with a common object to hamper the peace of society. 

How crime is defined by society?

The word society has been derived from the Latin word ‘ socius meaning association. Therefore, a society can be defined as an ‘association of people or people in a group who are related to each other by means of some common traits. While governing a society, the interests of the people are taken at large rather than depending on the needs and wants of one single person. The requirement of the people at large is considered. Different Legislations are not passed for different individuals, for one single society common legislation is applicable to them. A committed is defined as a crime only when it is wrong in the eyes of society. 

If a particular act is not opposed by a group of people, then it can never be considered an offense. For example, trespass, money laundering, and bribery these acts wouldn’t be a crime if it was not wrong in the eyes of society. Therefore, what society thinks is important in defining a crime.

The foundation of a society lies in the maintenance of peace and morals. Therefore, chapter 8 of IPC has been framed to deal with those actions which would put society’s peace at risk. The offenses which put public safety at risk can be classified into rioting, unlawful assembly, affray, assembly of five or more people in a situation where dispersion has been ordered and promotion of enmity between different classes of people.

Analysis of crimes against the society

Section 141- unlawful assembly: Every person has the fundamental right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b). However, certain circumstances given under section 141 of the IPC lead to unlawful assembly and it is considered a criminal offense. Any assembly which has been formed with 5 or more people with the intention to commit an unlawful offense is called an unlawful assembly. People in groups with a common intention and object to gather unlawfully and create a threat to the public peace is always dangerous. This is the main reason why unlawful assembly is criminalized. When an assembly gathered lawfully turns out to be aggressive and indulges in unlawful means, it will come under the purview of section 141 of IPC. The instances where there is a shift from lawful assembly to unlawful assembly is when the object of the assembly changes to resist legal proceedings, using criminal force against the state or any public servant, to committing trespass or mischief of the property of any person, to using criminal force against a person to make him do something against the law. 

In the case P.S. Kirubakaran v. Commr. of Police, Vepery (2021)[1], In this case, a group of advocates indulged in certain criminal activities like forcibly getting possession of certain properties, destruction of properties, etc., and therefore they caused the interruption in the peace of the society. The court charged them with the offense of unlawful assembly and took measures to curb such practices.

In the case of Amrika Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019).[2], dealing with the offense of unlawful assembly and the scope of section 141 of IPC was analysed. In this case, the cattle of the deceased jumped on the door of the appellant as a result exchange of words took place and the appellant started abusing the deceased after which an attack by a group of people took place, and eventually the deceased died. The appellant also sustained injuries during the attack and challenged before the court that he was unarmed during the attack and therefore he is not a part of the unlawful assembly. The court acquitted the accused.

 Merely a person being part of an assembly that has indulged in an unlawful act is not enough, it is also necessary that at the time of the commission of the act, the people indulged also had the same object. Therefore, in the present times, section 149 is one of the most misused sections as it is difficult to interpret every person’s object in an assembly and there are chances of misrepresentations where an innocent person would be charged with a crime.

Section 146- Rioting: Rioting is dealt with under sections 146 and 147 of the IPC. Riot is similar to that unlawful assembly, and the only difference is the term violence. If an unlawful assembly starts to get engaged in any violent act, it will be known as a riot. Therefore, the ingredients of rioting are the same as that of unlawful assembly which is a common intention. Engaging in violence is always a threat to the harmony of society. It will affect the co-existence of society. . Rioting Is committed as a means to show the group’s intention to oppose the policies of the government, the outcome of any legislation passed or a judgment made, etc. Under most circumstances, grave and sudden provocation lead to riots. An act done in sudden provocation is considered a defense under IPC. But the impact of this act is so huge as it can even cause disintegration and heavy losses and damages.

In the case Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. State of Gujarat (2019)[3], the appellant was a victim of gang rape that occurred during a riot in the year 2002 which came to be known as godhara train incident. She also lost her family during the attack. The Supreme Court in this case gave a compensation of 50 lakhs to the appellant under section 147 of IPC who was surviving with a daughter deprived of basic necessities of life such as food, shelter, etc. 

Affray: Affray is usually committed by 2 or more people when they fight in public which disrupts the peace of society. The offense is committed in such a manner that there must be some sort of disturbance to the public arising out of the actions of the people engaging in the fight. For example, If one person comes and attacks another person by knocking him down in a private place, it does not amount to affray as there is no chance of the act disrupting the peace of the society. Punishment for the offense of affray is imprisonment of one month or fine or both. Punishment is less compared to rioting and unlawful assembly only because of the fact that the impact caused by the offense of affray is much less.

Section 153- Promoting enmity between classes. The outcome of a clash between different communities of society is huge. Thus, the need to criminalize the act of causing enmity was considered, and causing enmity between people belonging to different classes or different sections of society based on class, sex, religion, language, place of birth, etc. is considered a criminal offense. This section is wide in nature and consists of those offenses like moral corruption. The validity of this section has been challenged overtime on the basis that it is a violation of Article 19(1)(a) as it restricts freedom of speech and expression for any statement made which can create an enmity between communities. But the validity of this section was still upheld considering the fact that creating disruption among communities can lead to a threat to the country’s national security and sovereignty. Every person has the right to express their opinions through any means but there are certain restrictions laid down under article 19(1)(f) and promoting enmity is one such restriction.

In the case Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. (2021)[4], In this case, the appellant through the means of the social media platform ‘Facebook’ posted writing representing the non-tribal group of Meghalaya, and therefore, he was charged under section 153A of the IPC. The court in this case analyzed section 153A of IPC and held that the main intention behind this section is to prevent any sort of act which would disrupt public harmony and create a threat to the nation’s sovereignty or national security. The appellant didn’t have any motive to create disturbances among communities by publishing the statement and it was just pleading for equality. 

The concept of good faith plays an integral role to define the offense of promoting enmity. Actions that are done in good faith without a wrongful intention are always a defense.

Vinod Dua V. Union of India & Ors. (2020)[5], In this case, the petitioner filed for a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution. The petitioner was accused of creating a disturbance in society by making malicious statements against the prime minister and the government through his youtube channel for providing false information regarding PPE kits to the public. The Supreme court in this case held that the statement made by the petitioner was just a disagreement against the policies of the government and that won’t cause any disturbance to the peace of the society.

In the case Bijumon v. State of Kerala (2018).[6], In this case, the accused was charged under section 153A for publishing wrong information regarding a communal war between Christians and Muslims. The petition for anticipatory bail from the side of the accused was dismissed by the court as a such publication can result in putting the public peace in danger.

Recent developments

The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) by the Uniform crime reporting program, each offense reported where classified into offenses against persons, offenses against property, and offenses against society. Offenses against society are basically victimless offenses that put the safety of society at risk. Some offenses classified as offenses against society in the alphabetic order are animal cruelty, drug violations, gambling offenses such as betting or wagering, offenses under pornography or obscene material, prostitution offenses, weapon law violations, intoxication such as drunk and drive, family offenses, and trespass of real property. 

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High court denied a bail application of a baba who was accused of raping a minor girl and stated that ‘rape is not just a crime against an individual it is a crime against society.’ Sexual assault against a girl would result in inducing trauma in the mind of any girl belonging to that society, not just the victim. The impact of the offense is something that must be overlooked. If the impact of an offense is on one single person it cannot be a crime against society. If a person is stabbed by his colleague during an argument it can never be a crime against society as the impact of the crime is on the victim only. But when the person has been murdered in a heinous manner, this creates a situation of fear in the minds of the people in the society too. The impact is not just on the victim or the family of the victim. It is collective in nature.

Similarly, a bench of Justices S A Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian made the observation that the practice of corruption by a public servant is an offense against the state or the society, and such cases cannot be dealt with under the suit of specific performances. The offense of corruption is of the nature that people in the society as a whole will start losing their trust in the government and other officials, as well as the rich or privileged section, would get an upper hand in the society. This might lead to the disintegration of the nation and society. Therefore, the impact is huge.

Conclusion

The public or society is considered the core of the country’s democracy, Therefore, any offense which is committed against an individual does not come under the purview of the chapter of IPC but it can disrupt public peace and is categorized as an offense against society. During the pandemic, there was a steady increase in the number of cases against society, especially through social media. A lot of wrong information about the spreading of covid 19 government policies was spread across the nation creating a situation that made society to be panic.

Along with the legislation and the laws brought in to tackle the offenses against society, the judgments passed in various cases are also an essential means to maintain public peace.

References:

  1. P.S. Kirubakaran v. Commr. of Police., SCC OnLine Mad 508.
  2. Amrika Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh., (2019) 4 SCC 620.
  3. Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. State of Gujarat., (2020) 13 SCC 733.
  4. Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 258.
  5. Vinod Dua v. Union of India & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1209.
  6. Bijumon v. State of Kerala., 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 11481.
  7. Press Trust of India, Rape is a crime against society, not just an individual: HC, The Times of India (Jan 03, 2023, 11:50 IST), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/allahabad/rape-a-crime-against-society-not-just-an-individual-hc/articleshow/85875192.cms

This article is written by Vishal Menon, from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN IN INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF IPC

Posted on

ABSTRACT

The article seeks to discuss and elaborate on the crimes committed against women through the lens of the Indian Penal Code.

INTRODUCTION

Indian Penal Code is a comprehensive code that integrates and codifies the criminal law of India. The Code prescribes punishment for offenses committed within India. IPC was basically the brainchild of the English government. The first law commission of India1, which was established by the Charter Act of 1833, steered the drafting of IPC, under the tutelage of Thomas Macaulay in 1834. The drafting of the code was completed in 1850 and was presented to the Imperial Legislative Council in 1856 which was ultimately enacted by the Imperial Council on 6th October 1860. The Criminal Code was initially enforced only upon selected Indian States. However, after the Independence of India, the ambit of the act was gradually widened and it covered the entire Indian territory except for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, wherein, after the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, the IPC came into force. The IPC is divided into 23 chapters, spanning 511 exhaustive sections. Each Chapter of IPC deals with a separate category of offense in the most elaborative and fastidious fashion.

Women are the building blocks of any society. They are synonymous with empathy, motherhood, empowerment, and development. However, like the men and children and other sections of society, the women too need the constitutional and legislative safeguard to protect their interests. Women, as a quintessential section of Indian society, have been vulnerable to myriad crimes. The patriarchal mindset of Indian society coupled with inequity and physical fragility, have jeopardized the interests of women.

IPC serves as an effective tool to serve the interests of all the sections of the society, especially the women, and thereby in that furtherance, categorically lays down descriptive code to punish the people for their crimes. It addresses some of the most rudimentary and fundamental issues concerning the safety of women in everyday life in length and breadth.

PROVISIONS OF IPC THAT DEAL WITH CRIME AGAINST WOMEN2

In order to proceed further, it is to be noted that Section 10 of IPC describes ‘women’ as female human beings of any age group.

1. OFFENCES AFFECTING LIFE

  • Section 304B of IPC: Dowry Death.
    It prescribes that if the death of a woman is caused within 7 years of marriage due to bodily injury or burns and it could be shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relative, then such death would be deemed as dowry death and the punishment for the same would be imprisonment for a minimum term of 7 years, which could be extended to imprisonment for life.

2. OFFENCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE AND INJURY TO THE UNBORN BABIES

  • Section 313:
    Miscarriage without Consent: Causation of miscarriage of a woman without her consent and good faith is punishable with a term of up to 10 years or with a fine, or both
  • Section 315:
    Any act done explicitly and not done in good faith, leading to the death of a child after birth or preventing it from being born alive is punishable with a term of up to 10 years and a fine.

3. OFFENCES CAUSING HURT

  • 326A: Voluntary Causing Of Hurt With The Use Of Acid
    Voluntary causation of grievous hurt by throwing/administering acid, that leads to permanent or partial deformity/ damage to any body part of the victim is punishable with a minimum term of 10 years which could extend up to life imprisonment and with fine
  • 326B: Attempting To Throw Acid
    Any attempt to throw or administer acid to any person leading to permanent or partial deformity of any body part is punishable with a term ranging from 5 to 7 years and with a fine.

4. OFFENCES INVOLVING USE OF CRIMINAL FORCE AND ASSAULT

  • Section 354: Outraging Modesty Of Women
    Intentional use of criminal force (assault) to outrage or likely to outrage the modesty of women is punishable with a term not less than 1 year, which may extend up to 5 years, and a fine.
  • Section 354A: Sexual Harassment Of Woman
    Sexual harassment of women by physically touching her, making sexually colorable remarks/ expressions, showing pornography against her will, demanding sexual favors is punishable with a term ranging from 1 year to 3 years or fine or both.
  • Section 354B: Use Of Force To Disrobe Women
    Use of criminal force to disrobe a woman or compel her to be naked is punishable with a term ranging from years to 7 years or fine or both.
  • Section 354C: Punishment For Voyeurism
    To capture an image or watch women engaging in the private act where women would reasonably expect privacy is a punishable offense wherein the offender is liable with a term of up to 3 years of fine or both.
  • Section 354D: Punishment For Stalking A Woman
    Stalking a woman by contacting or following her, or attempting to develop personal interaction against the will of the woman, except in cases of discharging legal or public duty, is punishable with a term of up to 3 years and a fine, which may extend up to 5 years.
  1. OFFENCES RELATED TO ABDUCTION/KIDNAPPING
  • Section 366A and Section 366B
    Both these sections deal with the procuration of a minor girl under the age of 18 years from any part of India or abroad respectively for the purpose of forcing her into illicit intercourse with another person is punishable for a term of up to 10 years and with a fine.
  • Section 370
    Trafficking of a person by means of force, fraud, abduction, inducement, threat, or force for the purpose of exploitation of the victim with or without its consent is punishable for a term ranging from 7 years up to life imprisonment along with a fine, depending upon the grievousness of the situation and crime.
  • Section 372 and Section 373
    Selling and buying of minors respectively for the purposes of above Sections, under the age of 18 years for the purpose of prostitution is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years and fine.
  1. OFFENCES INVOLVING SEXUAL CRIMES
  • Section 375: Definition Of Rape
    This section defines rape. Rape is committed if a man applies his mouth or penetrates his penis/ any object or into mouth, vagina, urethra, or anus; or manipulates any body part of a woman so as to facilitate penetration against the will of the woman or with her consent by coercing/ putting her under fear/ deceiving her to be her lawful husband or under intoxication or when she is under 18 years of age.
  • Section 376: Punishment For Rape
    Rape is punishable with a minimum term of at least 10 years and with a fine that may extend up to life imprisonment. Rape by police officers, public servants, members of armed forces, jail staffs, hospital staff, staff of remand home, persons exercising fiduciary relationship, is punishable with rigorous imprisonment of five to ten years, extending to imprisonment for natural life along with fine.
  • Section 376A: Punishment For Rape Resulting In Death
    This Section deals with punishment for causing death or persistently vegetative state of the victim due to rape. The offender will be liable with imprisonment of a minimum of 20 years which shall extend up to life imprisonment or even with death.
  • Section 376AB
    Raping a woman under 12 years of age shall result in imprisonment of at least 20 years and with a fine, which may extend up to life imprisonment or with death.
  • Section 376B
    Rape by husband upon his wife during the period of the decree of separation shall be punished with a term of at least 2 years, extendable up to 7 years, and with a fine.
  • Section 376C
    Rape committed by people in authority, public servants, or by those in a fiduciary relationship, or by management of a hospital or by jail staff, shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment of a minimum of 5 years, which may extend up to 10 years, and with fine.
  • Section 376D: Prescribes Punishment For Gangrape
    Rape committed by two or more men acting in furtherance of common intention shall be punishable with imprisonment of not less than 20 years which may extend up to life imprisonment.
  • Section 376DA
    Rape of girls under sixteen years of age is punishable with imprisonment of a minimum of twenty years extending to imprisonment for natural life along with a fine.
  • Section 376E: Prescribes Punishment For Repeat Offenders
    A person committing rape, who has been previously convicted of rape under Section 376, 376A-D, shall be punishable with imprisonment of life.
  1. OFFENCES INVOLVING COMMITMENT OF CRUELTY BY HUSBAND UPON HIS WIFE
  • Section 498A
    Cruelty includes the acts of harassment by the husband or his relative that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health; or any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The husband or his relative who subjects such women to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with a fine.

CONCLUSION

Even in this 21st century, where the technological advancements and the cogent changes in the perception of the moral standards of Indian society have revolutionized our way of life, women continue to be subjected to multitudes of crimes every day. IPC as a criminal code provides the basic framework for legislative penal actions. It serves as a foundation and paves way for the introduction and enactment of specific women-centric legislative pieces to exhaustively address the issues of women and chalk out the way forward.

References:

  1. Historical Introduction to IPC (PDF)
  2. https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1860-45.pdf

This article is written by Riya Ganguly, 2 nd year BBA LLB student at Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune.

An Overview of Capital Punishment in India

Posted on

The present article is written by Muskan Harlalka, a 2nd-year law student from the School of Law, Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Rajasthan.

Introduction

Punishment is a form of constraint used for the effective implementation of the law. It is based on the belief that a wrongdoer should suffer for his misdeeds and that punishing the wrongdoer acts as a deterrent for others. Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the highest and most cruel form of punishment awarded at present. It is awarded for the most heinous, grave, and detested crimes. It implies the legal killing of a person who has committed a crime forbidden by law. 

The punishments awarded by a Court derive their justification from various Theories of Punishment. Capital punishment is based on the Deterrent and Retributive theories of punishment. According to the Deterrent theory, capital punishment rids the society of the offender and deters others from committing crimes by affecting their consciousness. On the other hand, the Retributive theory believes in inflicting in return for wrongdoing, not the same thing but its equivalent.

Many of the laws enacted by the British colonial government were retained by India after independence. These included the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (CrPC). The IPC laid down six forms of punishment including the death penalty that could be awarded to a wrongdoer. For offenses where capital punishment was an option, as per Section 367(5) of CrPC, the Judges were required to provide reasons for not imposing the death sentence. This provision was later repealed in 1898 and when the CrPC was re-enacted in 1973, significant changes were made. Now the Courts had to provide special reasons for awarding the death sentence. 

Methods of Execution of Death Penalty in India

In India, the death penalty is executed by either of the following methods:-

  1. Hanging – The Civil Procedure Code provides hanging as a method of execution in civilian courts.
  2. Shooting – According to the Army Act of 1950, both shooting and hanging are the official methods of execution in the military court-martial system.

Capital Offenses in IPC and Other Laws

  1. Capital offenses under IPC: The death sentence is the most extreme punishment provided under the Code. The authors of the Code have stated that it is to be awarded only in those cases where a murder or the highest offense against the State has been committed. Some of the offenses where the death penalty has been provided as an alternate form of punishment are waging or attempting to wage war against the Government of India (Section 121), abetment of mutiny committed (Section 132), murder (Section 302), kidnapping for ransom (Section 364A), dacoity with murder (Section 396) and others.
  2. Capital offenses in other laws: Apart from IPC, the death penalty has been prescribed as a punishment in various other legislations such as the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) 1985, the Army Act 1950, the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act 1987, anti-terrorism laws, etc.

Constitutionality of Capital Punishment

The constitutional validity of the death penalty was challenged for the first time in the case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. In this case, the appellant was convicted for the murder of Chhotey Singh and sentenced to death under Section 302 of IPC. One of the arguments that were put forth against capital punishment was that it puts an end to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 19 (protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.) of the Constitution of India. It was also pointed out that there was a lack of any procedure for the trial of factors and circumstances crucial for choosing between life imprisonment and capital punishment. Such absence violates the Right to protection of life and personal liberty granted under Article 21 of the Constitution and is thus, not in the interest of the public.

The Supreme Court stated that the trial was held in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and since these provisions were a part of the procedure established by law, the death penalty did not violate Article 21. Thus, the constitutionality of the death sentence was upheld.

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court upheld its earlier decision in the case of Jagmohan Singh and stated that the death penalty is reasonable as a punishment and does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution.

Rarest of Rare Cases – Guidelines

While upholding the constitutionality of capital punishment, the constitution bench in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab observed that for murder convicts, imprisonment for life is the rule, and the death penalty a deviation from that rule. The bench concluded that the death penalty should be given only in the “rarest of rare cases” and thus the “Doctrine of Rarest of Rare Case” was established. This case also managed to effectively shift the focus from the crime to both the crime and the criminal in awarding the death penalty.  

Afterward, in Machi Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court formulated specific criteria to establish the scope of rarest of rare doctrine and gave some factors to be considered while deciding the rarest of rare cases. These factors are:

  1. Manner of commission of murder: When the murder is committed in an extremely cruel way so as to attract intense resentment from society.
  2. The motive for commission of murder: When the motive for committing murder indicates immorality and meanness.
  3. Antisocial or socially abhorrent nature of the crime: When a member of the Scheduled Caste or any minority community is murdered or in cases of bride burning, dowry death, etc.
  4. The magnitude of crime: When the proportion of the crime is enormous.
  5. The personality of the murder victim: When the victim is a helpless woman, an innocent child, a civic figure, etc.

Commutation of the Death Penalty

Section 54 of the Indian Penal Code talks about the commutation of the death penalty by an appropriate Government. The convict also has the option of appealing to the Supreme Court and if the Court refuses to hear the appeal or upholds the capital punishment, then the convict or his relatives can submit a mercy petition to the Governor of the State or the President of India.

The Governors of the States and the President of India, respectively have the power under Articles 161 and 72 of the Constitution to grant remission (reduce the punishment without changing the nature of the punishment), reprieve (temporary suspension), pardon (conditional or absolute), respite (postponement of the execution of a death sentence to a future date) or to remit, suspend or commute the sentence pronounced for any offense. The grounds for seeking mercy include age, the harshness of the law, physical fitness, etc.

Former President Pratibha Patil had granted pardon to 30 convicts, some of which were cases of brutal crimes, while her successor Pranab Mukherjee had rejected 24 mercy pleas. President Ram Nath Kovind has rejected at least two mercy pleas, which include the petition of Akshay, a 2012 gang-rape convict. 

In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, the Apex Court stated that delay in execution of the death penalty exceeding two years does not entitle the convict to commutation of his sentence. However, in Jagdish v. State (2009) the Court said that the length is a convict’s wait for execution, the higher should be the chances of commutation of his death penalty to imprisonment for life.

Should the Death Penalty be Abolished?

There is a wide controversy surrounding the issue of retention of capital punishment. Those who are against capital punishment argue that capital punishment is irreversible. Moreover, its use has not brought any significant crime reduction and hence it has no deterrent value. It is also possible that the retention of the punishment may lead to the acquittal of a guilty person resulting in failure of justice. Also, retribution is a medieval concept and should not be practiced in a civilized society. 

Supporters of the death penalty assert that sentences pronounced by the Sessions Courts are subject to confirmation by the High Courts which reduces the possibility of error. The supporters also contend that the chances of an innocent person being punished with capital punishment were reduced when the Apex Court struck down the mandatory death sentence given under Section 303 of IPC. Besides, even after the pronouncement of the death penalty, the convict has the option of submitting a mercy petition to the Governor of the State or the President of India, which further reduces the possibility of an innocent person getting punished.

Conclusion

The death penalty is not just a punishment, it ends the life of a person and eliminates the chances of improvement. It is true that a wrongdoer needs to be punished, but we as a society need to focus on getting rid of the offence, not the offender. Society should focus on reformative theory instead of the deterrent theory as in reformative theory there is a possibility of improvement.

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES