Court Upholds Hanging as Constitutional Method of Execution

The Court upheld the constitutionality of the method of execution by hanging prescribed under Section 354(5) of the CrPC, ruling that it does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution. The State successfully demonstrated that hanging is a humane and dignified method of execution, causing minimal pain and suffering. The burden of proof in constitutional challenges under Article 21 lies with the State to establish that the prescribed procedure for depriving a person of life or personal liberty is just, fair, and reasonable, which was met in this case. The writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the method of execution were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the mode of execution of the death sentence prescribed u/s 354(5) of the CrPC.
2. Burden of proof regarding the constitutionality of the method of execution.
3. Whether the method of hanging is cruel, inhuman, or degrading and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Mode of Execution of the Death Sentence:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the method of execution by hanging u/s 354(5) of the CrPC, arguing that it is cruel and barbarous, thus violating Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." The Court referenced previous judgments, including Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh, which upheld the death penalty for the 'rarest of rare cases' but did not specifically address the method of execution.

2. Burden of Proof:
The Court discussed the burden of proof in constitutional challenges, particularly under Articles 14, 19, and 21. It was concluded that in cases under Article 21, the burden lies on the State to prove that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of life or personal liberty is just, fair, and reasonable. This includes proving that the method of execution is not harsh, cruel, or degrading.

3. Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Nature of Hanging:
The State provided extensive evidence, including reports from the Royal Commission of the United Kingdom, opinions of medical experts, and the 35th Report of the Law Commission of India, to demonstrate that hanging is a quick, certain, and humane method of execution. The Court noted that the mechanics of hanging have been significantly improved to ensure instantaneous death by dislocation of cervical vertebrae, minimizing pain and suffering. The Court also considered alternative methods like electrocution, lethal gas, and lethal injection but found that they do not offer significant advantages over hanging and have their own complications.

Conclusion:
The Court held that the method of hanging prescribed u/s 354(5) of the CrPC does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution. It was concluded that the State has successfully discharged its burden of proving that hanging is a humane and dignified method of executing the death sentence, causing the least pain and suffering. The writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 354(5) were dismissed.

---