https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196668 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. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:27:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196668 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196668