TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the constitutional challenge to the mode of execution prescribed by Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was barred because the matter was already concluded in earlier decisions and, if not, on whom the burden lay to justify the impugned procedure under Article 21; (ii) Whether execution by hanging under Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is cruel, inhuman, barbarous or degrading so as to violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Issue (i): Whether the constitutional challenge to the mode of execution prescribed by Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was barred because the matter was already concluded in earlier decisions and, if not, on whom the burden lay to justify the impugned procedure under Article 21.
Analysis: The earlier death-penalty decisions were held not to have squarely and independently determined the constitutional validity of the specific statutory mode of execution. The Court distinguished the rules governing burden of proof under Articles 14, 19 and 21, holding that the principles of presumption of constitutionality in equality cases could not be mechanically extended to a challenge under Article 21. Once a law is shown to invade life or personal liberty, the State must justify that the deprivation is by a just, fair and reasonable procedure. The impugned provision itself prescribed the procedure for extinguishing life, so the State carried the burden of establishing its constitutional validity.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection failed, and the burden rested on the State to justify Section 354(5) under Article 21.
Issue (ii): Whether execution by hanging under Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is cruel, inhuman, barbarous or degrading so as to violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The Court examined historical materials, expert opinions, commission reports and comparative methods of execution. It held that modern judicial hanging, as presently regulated, is designed to be quick, certain and to minimise pain and suffering. The Court rejected the argument that Article 21 prohibits all pain incidental to lawful execution, holding instead that the Constitution forbids only execution by a cruel, barbarous or degrading method. The comparative analysis did not show any alternative method to be clearly superior, and the material placed by the State was sufficient to show that hanging did not involve unnecessary torture, humiliation or degradation.
Conclusion: Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not violate Article 21.
Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to the prescribed mode of execution failed, and the Court upheld the legality of hanging as the statutory method for carrying out a sentence of death.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes the procedure for depriving a person of life, the State must prove that the procedure is just, fair and reasonable, but a mode of execution that is shown to be quick, certain and free from unnecessary torture or degradation does not offend Article 21.
TaxTMI 
