https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196668 A constitutional challenge to the statutory mode of execution failed because prior death-penalty decisions had not independently decided the validity of Section 354(5), and the State bore the burden to justify any procedure that extinguishes life under Article 21. On the merits, judicial hanging was found to be designed to be quick, certain and to minimise pain, and the material placed showed no unnecessary torture, humiliation or degradation. The Court therefore concluded that hanging, as the prescribed method of execution, is not cruel, inhuman, barbarous or degrading and does not violate Article 21. 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 A constitutional challenge to the statutory mode of execution failed because prior death-penalty decisions had not independently decided the validity of Section 354(5), and the State bore the burden to justify any procedure that extinguishes life under Article 21. On the merits, judicial hanging was found to be designed to be quick, certain and to minimise pain, and the material placed showed no unnecessary torture, humiliation or degradation. The Court therefore concluded that hanging, as the prescribed method of execution, is not cruel, inhuman, barbarous or degrading and does not violate Article 21. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196668