Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Lok Sabha Debates

Further Discussion On The Motion For Consideration Of The Abolition Of Capital ... on 24 November, 2006

an> Title: Further discussion on the motion for consideration of the Abolition of Capital Punishment, 2004 moved by Shri C.K. Chandrappan on 14th August, 2006 ( Bill Withdrawn ).

 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now we will have further discussion for consideration of the Bill moved by Shri C.K. Chandrappan. I request Shri Chandrappan to speak now.

            Mr. Chandrappan, you have already spoken for three minutes.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN (TRICHUR): Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, the other day I moved the Abolition of Capital Punishment Bill, 2004. One of the most important reasons for getting this barbarous punishment abolished is that it is very uncivilized and it is debasing the society. It really hurts a modern society to have this kind of a punishment.

            This opinion has been expressed by the United Nations in very strong terms and they appealed to countries all over the world to adopt a position by which this punishment is removed from the law books. Now, India is a member of the United Nations. On the basis of the appeal made by the United Nations, 120 countries have abolished this punishment and a few of them stopped the practice of continuing the execution, but we are in the company of a minority. There are 73 countries in the world which are still continuing capital punishment in the statute book and India is also one among them. Here, we have to examine this in detail.

15.38 hrs.                  (Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav in the Chair)             Sir, I do not think it is basically a legalistic problem or a constitutional issue, it is more a sociological problem. Now, let us see how things stand today. We should discuss this in a rather dispassionate manner without bringing into certain cases and making it look like that we are pleading for somebody or somebody else.

            In the ancient world, ‘an eye for an eye’ or ‘a tooth for a tooth’ or ‘blood for blood’ was the practice. But that was a very ancient understanding of law. Then, gradually the world changed and the world changed in the sense that a Century ago, in England death sentence was awarded to a servant if he or she had stolen a spoon. That was enough to sentence him or her to death or even if a piece of bread is stolen or a little flower is taken away, death sentence was given. So, that was the kind of harsh attitude taken in those days, and not only that; they have done it really in a manner so loathsome to imagine that it happened in this modern society in England.[R34]  I[r35] n the days of Henry VIII, 72,000 people were executed and history says that during the period of Queen Elizabeth 19,000 executions took place.  Those days, it was a very common practice because for any small crime death sentence was awarded.

            Now, if you look at how these death sentences were awarded, you can see certain approach to the whole problem.  That was not there in the ancient days but in the recent period also. If the crime has been committed by a black man in the United States against a white man, the black man will be treated so harshly.  If it is the other way round, a crime committed by a white man against a black man, so lenient is the approach.  So, this approach is there even in case of deciding whether somebody should be executed or not.

            Now, there is another problem.  A rich man, who can afford the best legal brains, defend his case and bribe the witnesses and in many cases he can bribe the officials who are investigating, can easily escape death sentence.  But a poor man very often meeting a situation like that will have to end up his life in the gallows.  This is even today true in India. 

            The very controversial execution recently has taken place in West Bengal.  One Dhananjay Chatterjee was awarded death sentence 14 years ago, but the sentence was executed after 14 years.  The kind of agony he experienced and all that is different.  But just before he was executed, the hangman, as a customary practice, whispered into his ears ‘pardon me, I am doing only my duty.’  Dhananjay cried and said that being a poor man, I am being hanged.  I would like to be born again as a rich man so that I can escape this execution.

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN (BALASORE): I commit the crime, but I do not want to be hanged.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : That is a different matter.  The point is that had he been rich, he would have been able to escape gallows, but because he is poor, defenceless, he could not influence anybody and was sentenced to death, whether he committed the crime for which he is sentenced. Well, in many cases, it is also doubtful.

            Mr. Swain talked about the crime.  I need not cite examples.  There are innumerable number of cases of miscarriage of justice.  In that case, once somebody is hanged and later when you realize that well it was a mistake, the man is gone, but you get right that you committed a mistake.

SHRI B. MAHTAB (CUTTACK): After 14 years.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : Yes, that sort of things should not happen.  We are living in a civilized society where we must have more humane approach to these problems.  It is not that we are supporting any particular crime or anything and it is also not a party position.  There is no resolution adopted by the party whether there could be execution or not.  It is not that.[r36]  But, in a civilized society when the whole world is changing its thinking, whether India should continue in the same line; that is what this House has to discuss.  That is my thinking.

            The Indian Penal Code is a product of the British which is 145 years or 146 years old.  Now, so much change has taken place all over the world in our approach to the problems and everything.  Now, in India, we have a President.  I am referring about President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam; before that, it was R. Venkataraman.  They all thought death sentence is too much in a situation like this in which we are living.  Is it so that it is only the penalty of execution that we can carry on?  I do not think so.  In the post-Independence period, you take, as a whole, the number of people executed; some statistics say that about 50 to 60 people have been executed.  If they had been pardoned, I do not think heavens would have fallen.  That is what President Kalam says.  There is a row of people who are to be executed.  He says to have a second look at it whether it should be really done so.  I know about the cases; the cases may be of very serious nature.  But, what is the end of justice?  Is it that you are taking revenge on an individual, or is it that you are trying to reform him?  I think, in a modern society the whole attempt is to reform the person whatever it is possible.  We may not succeed.  I do not say we will succeed in that.  But, when the society changes its attitude, there is a possibility that we will succeed to a great extent.  Even if we do not succeed, if life sentence is awarded, and remissions and everything is not given, then the person will die in custody.  The society will not be harmed by him. We cannot take an attitude that only with his blood we will get satisfied.  That is a very uncivilized approach.  About 140 or 150 years ago Indian Penal Code was made; England has changed that; India also has changed that.  There is no more execution in England.  Death penalty has been dispensed with.  In India also, we are not doing it in the same manner as we did in former times. 

            Justice Krishna Iyer, one of the eminent Justices, said:

 “Progressive criminology across the world will agree that the infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a realm of the past and regressive time.  We strongly feel that humanitarian wind blow into the prison barricades.”             I think that is a balanced approach. By raising this discussion, I am trying that this House will seriously ponder over it and come to some kind of a conclusion that we will take a more civilized attitude to this problem.  As 120 countries in the world have taken a stand on this issue that there should be no more execution, can we not do that?  That is one of the important things.  I told you about the past. [r37]                In the past in India also, if you go to the ancient period, a lot of execution was there.  From the times of Manu, Narada and Vishnu, a different attitude was taken; not that you get anybody who is committing any crime executed.  That attitude was changed.  I think, we should continue with that. 

            My whole plea is that a crime must be very serious.  It is an individual who is committing certain crime which may be of very serious in its nature. But should a society also stoop so low and give a reply in the same coin?  For an individual, it is natural or easy to make a mistake.  But a society, a modern society for that matter, a civilized one, should not make that mistake in the same fashion.  That is why I say that you punish him.  If his living becomes a problem for the society, allow him to live in prison for the rest of his life.  If he is rectified, it is good.  If he refused to get rectified, let him die in prison.  The end of justice can be met that way also.  So, there is no need to insist that we should execute somebody and only then we will get the justice done. … (Interruptions)

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN : We will have to take into account the feelings of the family of the victims. … (Interruptions)

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN (TRICHUR): I am sure that we will take into account the feelings of the family of the victims, and all that.  There are many suggestions.  I am not going into them.  Even very learned Judges made that suggestion.  You punish him.  You take all his properties and compensate the family of the victims with that.  You can compensate in that way.  The person is dead, and the crime has been committed.  If you kill this man also, you will not get back again the person whom you have lost.  So, in whichever way it is possible you try to compensate that family.  If the person is dangerous for the society, keep him in jail, and see that he remains in jail and dies there.  I am not against it.  But there is no need that we kill that man.  We have no right to kill anybody.  Do you think that we have that right? … (Interruptions)

   

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN : Life imprisonment is only for 14 years. … (Interruptions)

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : That is why I said that it could be changed.  You make necessary amendment in the law so that remission is not given.  If, after 14 years of his life imprisonment, he is alive and no sign of any change in him  and if you want to keep him in prison, keep him there.  We have no right to kill anybody.  I would like to quote what Mahatma Gandhi had said.  He said: “We have no right to take anybody’s life.”  The Bible says: “Thou shall not kill anybody.”  So, all these teachings are there against the killings of people. 

            We are in a State which is very civilized, very modern, where we should take an attitude towards this problem.  That is what I am trying to say.

            Now, take the case of the United States.  There are several States in the United States where there is no execution but there are several States where still capital punishment is there.  I would like to quote what Mr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, a Justice of the United States, while participating in a Seminar, had said.  He said:

“I believe that a majority of the Supreme Court will one day accept that when the State punishes with death, it denies the humanity and dignity of the victim.  That will be a great day for our country and our court.”               I wish that in India also, we will have that great day. 

            Now, there are signs that we are also going towards that direction. There are changes in the law-making in this regard. Earlier, if any young boy or girl below the age of 18 committed a crime, he/she could be awarded a death sentence.  Now, India has decided along with many countries in the world, on the recommendations of the UN, that such young boys and girls should not awarded capital punishment.  It is a good thing; it is a big step forward.

            Now, again the Supreme Court has decided, in one of the important cases in 1983, that in rarest of rare crimes only, death sentence could be awarded.  In his judgment, the Judge should say that ‘this is the rarest of the rare crimes.’  So, we are scaling down the number.  Once upon a time, for many crimes, the capital punishment was very common. And now, the number for which the death sentence could be awarded has been brought down. This is an important judgment. Up to the age of 18 years, if a boy or girl committed a crime, that could have been considered as a death sentence  in the past.  Now, you say: “pardon them; they are young people.”  It is not that they would commit a crime.  The world has moved in that direction.  The United  Nations wanted the entire world  to accept this position.  Thank God, India also accepted this position.  Now, the Supreme Court says that only in the rarest of rare crimes, a capital punishment  would be awarded. Then again, the number would be so small.

            Now, my appeal is that even in the rarest of rare cases, let us see that we take a view that they are allowed to live; they are allowed to live without harming the society.  If they harm the society, they would not get the pardon.  The judgment should say about whether the life sentence is enough.  The performance and other things of the persons in jail would be counted.  If we take that attitude, we can wipe this blemish on our face.  India, the land of Mahatma Gandhi;  the land of Gautam Buddha; the land of peace; and the land of Ahimsa should not practice this barbarism  of the ancient or middle-age.  That is my appeal to this House.  I hope, this House would give its due considerations and discuss this  problem with all serious that it deserves.

           

SHRI K.S. RAO (ELURU): Mr. Chairman, Sir, I wish that the conditions in this country would come to a stage where Mr. Chandrappan’s desire would be fulfilled.  If all the citizens in the country were of the same caliber and kind of Mr. Chandrappan, there would not have been any problem at all.

            But unfortunately, there are people who are committing crimes not for the sake of achieving independence or serving the community or helping others.  There are a lot of people who have made committing crimes as a profession, who think that it is the best way for them to earn money, to make their livelihood, to go up in the  ladder not only monetarily but also in achieving power.[r38] 

16.00 hrs. So, we have to take those points also into consideration. As Mr. Chandrappan was telling, heavens would not have fallen if the punishment of 55 people, who were given capital punishment, were to be commuted. I agree with him. But how many more crimes should have been committed if there was not a fear that capital punishment is not there? So, it is not only that this number of 55 that is to be counted but also the fear that has to be counted. If the same principle were to be adopted, then why should anybody be sent to jail at all? If a person were to commit a murder, if a person were to commit a mistake, why should he be punished? He can as well be sent to school where he can be reformed. Then, why should he be sent to a jail?

C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : There are open jails.

SHRI K.S. RAO : How many jails are acting as reforming centres? What are the conditions prevailing in the jails today in this country? I appreciate if this ideal situation were there in this country where the jails act as reforming centres, where there are enough centres which think that they can be reformed wonderfully well and then we will have excellent citizens. If they think that even if they were to commit a mistake once, they will change their minds and come to a good position, then I agree with this. I also wish the same. It is not that I am against the abolition of the capital punishment. But, as he said, capital punishment is being given only in the rarest of rare cases. It is not being given liberally. So, the principle is there already. Those days have gone. Of course, though I have not seen but I have heard that Tanguturi Prakasam had bared his chest to the police in those days saying, ‘come on, you fire me’. That is with a zeal, that is with a feeling that he is ready to sacrifice his life for the nation.

            Today, a street rowdy is doing the same thing. He bares his chest to the police saying, ‘come on, fire me’ in spite of the fact that he has committed a murder. Why is he doing so? It is because he has the confidence that he can avoid punishment in some way or the other. He has no respect for the law. He has no fear for the law. He thinks he can hoodwink the law by bringing some wrong witnesses. In that situation, what should we do? So, even a country like U.K. has abolished capital punishment in 1986. This is after how many years? This is after how many years of sophistication? This is after how many years of reduction of cases? So, my point here is that if we increase the number of police constables or the number of checks in millions, can we avoid it? Can we avoid a citizen from committing crime or a criminal from committing a crime? There should be fear amongst the citizen that if he commits a mistake, he will be punished. He will be punished so drastically that he will lose his entire life. That fear makes him not to commit a crime. That fear reduces the law and order problem. That is how a Government or an organization could command or control the criminality. If that fear were not there, then this creates problem.

Are we living in an ideal situation where people have got tremendous amount of values, traditions, love, bond and affection where they feel shy to commit a crime? I agree with you that today the farmer is committing suicide. It is not because he has committed a crime. It is because he is not in a position to repay the loan he has taken. That is the value he has got. There, what you say is right. But how about a criminal whose profession is criminality?

If we were to think in the same way that we should not give capital punishment to him also, then he knows pretty well that he can pass the time in this judicial process that is going on today, he can survive comfortably in a jail with all the facilities for any number of years until at the end he will see that the capital punishment is not given. He will go back and repeat the same thing. Should we allow this? So, my point here is that have we come to a stage where we can think in terms of abolishing capital punishment in spite of all this? We have given capital punishment only to 55 people after Independence.

Supposing we think that we have abolished capital punishment, that means, we have commuted the sentence to those 55 people, then what is it that we are going to achieve? That means, we are giving an indication to the nation that we are a sophisticated nation, we are a developed and a very cultured nation. To whom we have to say this?[MSOffice39]              So, it is not that we have to compare with what is going on elsewhere in the world. It is not the criteria as to what is the United States doing, what is the United Kingdom doing and what is Europe doing. Where do we stand? What are the conditions prevailing in this country? What kind of punishments only can deter this? Shall we go for retribution or deterrence or reformation? I do not say retribution. But at least it should be deterrent. The punishment that we are going to give must be able to have the effect not only on the people who have committed the crime but also on the others who intend to commit the crime. A person who is thinking in terms of committing a crime and achieving his object must be scared, must feel that he would lose his life by committing this crime. So, more than the visible thing, most of the invisible things are also there. Keeping those things in our mind, we have to look into it. I agree with your argument. I also imagine that a state should come where it must be removed. I only wish to put it we might not have reached that stage where we can think of removing this capital punishment at this stage in this country. 

           Similarly, to what kind of people is the punishment given? It is not to the people who have killed a bride, not to the people who have killed on the issue of dowry. But in which manner he has killed her is also to be taken into account. You see incidents of burning the bride, killing his own wife in a drastic and heinous manner. I can understand if one were to kill a person instantaneously. I can understand if a person were to commit a mistake because he is mentally ill. But all these things are taken care of under the law. The very fact that this punishment is given only in a very very limited manner is to be seen. In a country with a population of 1.1 billion, if 55 people were to be there for capital punishment, shall we waste our discussion on this aspect of these 55 people, on capital punishment?

            While I am not against, I definitely am of the opinion that this is not the time for us to take all these things into account. For example, if a person were to pick the pockets, why is it that he is doing pick-pocketing? It is because he is a poor man, he is not in a position to get his livelihood. He tried all his best to get employment. He could not get one. There was no alternative except to do this and he went to do that. There also we are giving him punishment. You can give him reformation. I have no objection to it. But on these heinous crimes, if we were to think only in terms of reformation, then why should there be any punishment at all?  Whoever commits a mistake, let him be reformed. Let there be number of reforming centres in this country teaching him why he should not do a crime. Nothing will happen to him even if he were to do a crime. But the only thing is he has to go to reformation centre. In this way can we control the law and order? 

            I do not say that we must go to the stage of what is happening in Saudi Arabia. For every small thing, even for drug trafficking they are giving capital punishment. There is no drug trafficking there. Very rarely it is happening. If you were to lose something on the way, it would be lying there only and nobody is taking away that material. The people are scared of punishment.

                 

           Sir, I am concluding. In this manner, while I do not wish that a drastic punishment should be there in this country, but there must be a balance also. We cannot take one side view in the imagination of holistic things and all that. I do  not want to hurt the feelings of my friend Shri Chandrappan. While supporting his Bill I think it is not the time for us to think of it at this moment in the conditions that are prevailing in this country.

 

प्रो. रासा सिंह रावत (अजमेर): मान्यवर सभापति महोदय, मैं श्री सी.के. चन्द्रप्पन, माननीय सांसद द्वारा सदन में प्रस्तुत मृत्युदंड उत्सादन विधेयक, २००४ का विरोध करता हूं क्योंकि आदर्श और यथार्थ में बहुत अन्तर है। कहने के लिए तो समाज में यह होना चाहिए, वह होना चाहिए, लेकिन वैसा होता नहीं है। मुझे एक पंक्ति याद आ रही है -

ज्ञान दूर कुछ क्रिया भिन्न, इच्छा क्यों पूरी हो मन की।

एक दूसरे से न मिल सकें, यही विडम्बना है जीवन की।

YÉÉxÉ BÉÖEU +ÉÉè® BÉEciÉÉ cè, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ÉʵÉEªÉÉ BÉÖEU nںɮÉÒ cè* càÉÉ®ä ªÉcÉÆ |ÉÉSÉÉÒxÉ BÉEÉãÉ àÉå ¶ÉɺjÉÉå BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcÉÒ MÉ<Ç +ÉÉè® +ɶÉÉäBÉE, MÉÉèiÉàÉ ¤ÉÖr +ÉÉè® àÉcÉiàÉÉ MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcÉÒ MÉ<Ç, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ àÉé SÉxp{{ÉxÉ ºÉÉc¤É BÉEÉä ªÉÉn ÉÊnãÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ¤ÉcÖiÉ ºÉàÉªÉ xÉcÉÓ cÖ+ÉÉ cè BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE BÉEè{ÉÉÒ]ãÉ {ÉÉÊxɶàÉå] àÉå iÉÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEÉÒ VÉÉxÉ SÉãÉÉÒ VÉÉiÉÉÒ cè* <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA +ÉÉ{É BÉEc ®cä cé ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉä ºÉÉì{ÉD] ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* +ÉÉÉÊJÉ® xÉä{ÉÉãÉ àÉå àÉÉ+ÉÉä´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå xÉä BÉDªÉÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉÒ VÉÉxÉå ãÉÉÓ? नक्सलवादी क्या कर रहे हैं, आखिर वे भी तो हिन्दुस्तान में समतावादी समाज की स्थापना चाहते हैं। वे चाहते हैं कि लोगों के पास खाने-पीने के लिए हो, सबके पास घर हो, सबको रोटी मिले, सबको पहनने के लिए कपड़े मिलें, लेकिन इस उद्देश्य को प्राप्त करने के लिए भी न जाने कितने बेगुनाह लोगों को मौत के घाट उतार दिया जाता है।

        àÉcÉänªÉ, AäºÉä ºÉàÉªÉ àÉå ªÉc ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE +ÉɪÉÉ cè VÉ¤É ºÉÉ®ä nä¶É BÉEä +ÉÆn® BÉE®Éä½Éå ãÉÉäMÉ ªÉc àÉÉÆMÉ BÉE® ®cä cé ÉÊBÉE ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ, VÉÉä nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEÉ ºÉ¤ÉºÉä ¤É½É ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÆjÉ cè +ÉÉè® ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÆjÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉκàÉiÉÉ BÉEÉ ºÉ¤ÉºÉä ¤É½É |ÉiÉÉÒBÉE ªÉc ºÉƺÉn £É´ÉxÉ cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉ ºÉƺÉn £É´ÉxÉ {É® 13 ÉÊnºÉà¤É®, 2001 BÉEÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå uÉ®É VÉÉä +ÉɵÉEàÉhÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ, iÉ¤É càÉÉ®ä ¶ÉcÉÒn VÉ´ÉÉxÉÉå xÉä, ºÉƺÉn £É´ÉxÉ BÉEä àÉɶÉÇãÉÉå xÉä, ºÉƺÉn £É´ÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ ®FÉÉ àÉå VÉÉä ºÉ¶ÉºjÉ ¤ÉãÉ iÉèxÉÉiÉ cé, =xÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå xÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ VÉÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉVÉÉÒ ãÉMÉÉBÉE®, +É{ÉxÉÉÒ VÉÉxÉ BÉEÉä ¶ÉcÉniÉ BÉEä {ÉlÉ {É® ®JÉBÉE®, =xÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå BÉEÉä àÉÉèiÉ BÉEä PÉÉ] =iÉÉ® ÉÊnªÉÉ, VÉÉä ºÉ¤É BÉEä ºÉ¤É {ÉÉÉÊBÉEºiÉÉxÉÉÒ lÉä* =ºÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä ­ÉbáÉÆjÉ BÉEä {ÉÉÒUä ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉ ÉÊnàÉÉMÉ lÉÉ, BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® BÉEä àÉÉäcààÉn +É{ÉEVÉãÉ MÉÖ°ô, =ºÉä ºÉè¶ÉxÉ BÉEÉä]Ç xÉä +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ {ÉɪÉÉ +ÉÉè® àÉßiªÉÖnÆb BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ nÉÒ* cÉ<ÇBÉEÉä]Ç àÉå +É{ÉÉÒãÉ BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ cÉ<ÇBÉEÉä]Ç xÉä +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ {ÉɪÉÉ +ÉÉè® àÉßiªÉÖnÆb BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ BÉEÉÒ {ÉÖÉέ] BÉEÉÒ* ´Éä ºÉ´ÉÉæSSÉ xªÉɪÉÉãÉªÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn® MÉA* +É£ÉÉÒ +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä BÉEcÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ®äªÉ®äº] +ÉÉì{ÉE ÉÊn ®äªÉ® BÉEäºÉäºÉ àÉå AäºÉÉ cÉäiÉÉ cè* BÉDªÉÉ ªÉc ®äªÉ®äº] +ÉÉì{ÉE ÉÊn ®äªÉ® xÉcÉÓ cè ÉÊBÉE ºÉ´ÉÉæSSÉ xªÉɪÉÉãÉªÉ xÉä £ÉÉÒ àÉßiªÉÖnÆb BÉEÉÒ {ÉÖÉέ] BÉE®iÉä cÖA BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE =ºÉä àÉßiªÉÖnÆb BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ nÉÒ VÉÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* +ÉÉVÉ ºÉÉ®É nä¶É SÉÉciÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE =ºÉä àÉßiªÉÖnÆb BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ nÉÒ VÉÉA, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ¤É½ä JÉän BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ BÉEcxÉÉ {ɽiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉºÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉ ªÉä ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ BÉE® ®cä cé, ´Éc ºÉ®BÉEÉ® <ºÉ ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå +ɺÉàÉÆVÉºÉ àÉå cè* BÉE£ÉÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cÉÆ BÉEciÉÉÒ cè +ÉÉè® BÉE£ÉÉÒ xÉ* BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® ºÉä BÉÖEU +ÉÉè® +ÉÉ´ÉÉVÉ +ÉÉiÉÉÒ cè nںɮÉÒ VÉMÉc ºÉä BÉÖEU +ÉÉè® +ÉÉ´ÉÉVÉ +ÉÉiÉÉÒ cè, iÉÉҺɮÉÒ VÉMÉc ºÉä BÉÖEU +ÉÉè® +ÉÉ´ÉÉVÉ +ÉÉiÉÉÒ cè +ÉÉè® VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEÉä MÉÖàÉ®Éc BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉºÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè* VɤÉÉÊBÉE ºÉÉ®É nä¶É <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ABÉE cè ÉÊBÉE =ºÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ nÉÒ VÉÉA*         àÉÉxªÉ´É®, àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä <ºÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ºÉä BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE nä¶É SÉÉciÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉκàÉiÉÉ BÉEä |ÉiÉÉÒBÉE, ãÉÉäBÉEiÉÆjÉ BÉEÉÒ {ÉÉÊ´ÉjÉiÉÉ BÉEä ºÉ¤ÉºÉä ¤É½ä ºlÉãÉ {É® ÉÊVÉxÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå xÉä càÉãÉÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, =ºÉBÉEä {ÉÉÒUä ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉÉÉÊVÉ¶É lÉÉÒ, ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉ ­ÉbáÉÆjÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè® ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉ ÉÊnàÉÉMÉ lÉÉ, =ºÉ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ nÉÒ VÉÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä uÉ®É |ɺiÉÖiÉ  ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE BÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE àÉé ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE AäºÉä +É{É®ÉÉÊvɪÉÉå BÉEÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ nÉÒ cÉÒ VÉÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä àÉÉÆMÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉºÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEä ªÉä ºÉcªÉÉäMÉÉÒ cé +ÉÉè® ÉÊVÉºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉ ªÉä ÉÊ´ÉvÉäªÉBÉE ãÉÉA cé, =ºÉä näJÉBÉE® àÉÖZÉä ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE BÉEcÉÓ <xÉBÉEÉÒ ªÉc àÉƶÉÉ iÉÉä xÉcÉÓ cè ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ +É{ÉEVÉãÉ BÉEÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ ÉÊnA VÉÉxÉä BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE® ®cä cé, =xÉBÉEä º´É® àÉå ªÉä £ÉÉÒ +É{ÉxÉÉ º´É® ÉÊàÉãÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé* +É{ÉEVÉãÉ VÉèºÉä nä¶ÉpÉäcÉÒ, ÉÊVɺÉxÉä ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ Éʴɶ´ÉɺÉPÉÉiÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉºÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè, ÉÊVɺÉxÉä BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® BÉEä +ÉÆn® ¤ÉäMÉÖxÉÉcÉå BÉEÉä àÉÉèiÉ BÉEä PÉÉ] =iÉÉ®xÉä BÉEÉ BÉEÉàÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, BÉDªÉÉ AäºÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEÉä àÉÉèiÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ VÉÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* nä¶É BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE VÉÉä MÉqÉ®ÉÒ BÉE®iÉä cé, ´Éä SÉÉcä ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ ºÉàÉÉVÉ BÉEä cÉå, ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ vÉàÉÇ BÉEä àÉÉxÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉä BÉDªÉÉå xÉ cÉå, ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ ºÉà|ÉnÉªÉ BÉEä àÉÉxÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉä BÉDªÉÉå xÉ cÉå, =xcå àÉÉèiÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ nÉÒ VÉÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* जो भरा नहीं है भावों से बहती जिसमें रसधार नहीं ह्ृदय नहीं वह पत्थर है जिसमें स्वदेश का प्यार नहीं।

º´Énä¶É +ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEÉÒ +ÉÉκàÉiÉÉ BÉEÉä +ÉÉPÉÉiÉ {ÉcÖÆSÉÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ, nä¶É BÉEÉÒ ABÉEiÉÉ +ÉÉè® +ÉJÉÆbiÉÉ BÉEÉä +ÉÉPÉÉiÉ {ÉcÖÆSÉÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ, BÉEÉä<Ç £ÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ £ÉÉÒ ¤É½É BÉDªÉÉå xÉ cÉä, ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ ´ÉMÉÇ BÉEÉ BÉDªÉÉå xÉ cÉä, ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ vÉàÉÇ ªÉÉ àÉVÉc¤É BÉEÉ àÉÉxÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ BÉDªÉÉå xÉ cÉä, AäºÉä nä¶ÉpÉäcÉÒ BÉEÉä àÉÉèiÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ nÉÒ VÉÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE càÉÉ®ÉÒ VÉÉä ºÉÉÒ.+ÉÉ®.{ÉÉÒ.ºÉÉÒ. cè, =ºÉàÉå àÉßiªÉÖnÆb BÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ ®cxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*         ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé BÉEÉä<Ç +ÉxªÉjÉ xÉcÉÓ VÉÉ ®cÉ cÚÆ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ VÉÉä ¤ÉÉiÉ cè, ´Éc BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ-

सच्चाई छुप नहीं सकती झूठे उसूलों से खुशबू आ नहीं सकती कभी कागज के फूलों से।

 

        àÉÉxªÉ´É®, àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE nÂhbäxÉ ¶ÉÉÉκiÉ |ÉVÉÉàÉ - nÆb ºÉä |ÉVÉÉ  {É® ¶ÉɺÉxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè - ~ÉÒBÉE ¤ÉÉiÉ cè, c®äBÉE BÉEÉä BÉEÉä<Ç {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ VÉÉiÉÉÒ cè* ´Éc iÉÉä ®äªÉ®äº] +ÉÉì{ÉE ÉÊn ®äªÉ® cè* nÆb BÉEÉ £ÉªÉ iÉÉä ®cxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* MÉÉ亴ÉÉàÉÉÒ iÉÖãɺÉÉÒnÉºÉ VÉÉÒ xÉä ®ÉàÉɪÉhÉ àÉå BÉEcÉ cè ÉÊBÉE £ÉªÉ ÉʤÉxÉÖ cÉäªÉcÖ xÉ |ÉÉÒÉÊiÉ* =xcÉåxÉä BÉEcÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ÉʤÉxÉÉ £ÉªÉ BÉEä |ÉÉÒÉÊiÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ cè* [r40]          +ÉÉVÉ ncäVÉ BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® BÉE<Ç +ɤÉãÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEÉä àÉÉèiÉ BÉEä PÉÉ] =iÉÉ® ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè* +ÉÉVÉ ¤ÉãÉÉiBÉEÉ® BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® càÉÉ®ÉÒ ¤ÉcxÉ-¤ÉäÉÊ]ªÉÉå BÉEÉä JÉÖãÉä-+ÉÉàÉ ãÉÉäMÉ =xÉBÉEÉÒ +ÉÉκàÉiÉÉ ãÉÚ]BÉE®, =xÉBÉEä ]ÖBÉE½ä-]ÖBÉE½ä BÉE®BÉEä +ÉÉMÉ BÉEÉÒ £É]Â]ÉÒ àÉå ZÉÉåBÉEBÉE® àÉÉèiÉ BÉEä PÉÉ] =iÉÉ® näiÉä cé* BÉDªÉÉ AäºÉä +É{É®ÉÉÊvɪÉÉå BÉEä |ÉÉÊiÉ nªÉÉ BÉEÉ £ÉÉ´É ÉÊnJÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA? वे दया के पात्र नहीं हैं। इसमें पात्रता के ऊपर विचार करना पड़ेगा कि कौन पात्र है। हम भी चाहते हैं कि अपराधी सुधरें। उनमें सुधार हम भी चाहते हैं कि अपराधी को मौका मिले, लेकिन एग्जम्प्लरी पनिशमेंट का प्रावधान हमारी अपराध संहिता, हमारी सीआर.पी.सी. के अन्दर होना चाहिए, ताकि लोगों के अन्दर यह डर हो कि अगर हम ऐसा अपराध करेंगे तो हमें भी फांसी के ऊपर लटकाया जायेगा, फांसी की सजा मिलेगी। आप अशोक और गांधी की बात कर रहे थे। रूस में जो लाल क्रान्ति आई, उसमें १९१७ के अन्दर कितने ही मासूमों को मौत के घाट उतार दिया गया। During the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, what was the result? आप उसकी बात करते हैं और चाइना की बात करते हैं। अभी वह हमारा मित्र देश है, लेकिन पहले जब वहां क्रान्ति हुई, तब वहां क्या स्थिति थी?  àÉèÉÊlÉãÉÉÒ ¶É®hÉ MÉÖ{iÉ ®É­]ÅBÉEÉÊ´É cÖA* =xcÉåxÉä xÉcÖ­É xÉÉàÉ BÉEÉ ABÉE JÉÆbBÉEÉBªÉ ÉÊãÉJÉÉ* =ºÉàÉå ABÉE {ÉÉè®ÉÉÊhÉBÉE BÉEcÉxÉÉÒ +ÉÉiÉÉÒ cè* ´Éc BÉEcÉxÉÉÒ cè ÉÊBÉE ABÉE ¤ÉÉ® vÉ®iÉÉÒ BÉEä ®ÉVÉÉ xÉcÖ­É +É{ÉxÉÉÒ iÉ{ɺªÉÉ BÉEä ¤ÉãÉ {É® º´ÉMÉÇ BÉEä +Éxn® É˺ÉcɺÉxÉ BÉEÉä |ÉÉ{iÉ cÉä MɪÉä* º´ÉMÉÇãÉÉäBÉE BÉEä +Éxn® <xp BÉEä +ÉɺÉxÉ {É® ¤Éè~xÉä BÉEÉ =xÉBÉEÉä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ® ÉÊàÉãÉ MɪÉÉ* <ºÉºÉä ´ÉcÉÆ {É® ABÉEnàÉ ºÉxxÉÉ]É UÉ MɪÉÉ* =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ nä´É®ÉVÉ BÉEÉÒ {ÉixÉÉÒ <xpÉhÉÉÒ ®ÉäxÉä ãÉMÉÉÒ, ªÉc àÉÉ<lÉÉäãÉÉäÉÊVÉBÉE BÉElÉÉ cè, =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ nںɮÉÒ näÉʴɪÉÉÆ, ºÉ®º´ÉiÉÉÒ, nÖMÉÉÇ +ÉÉÉÊn =xcå ºÉÉÆi´ÉxÉÉ näxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA +ÉÉ<ÇÆ ÉÊBÉE iÉÖàÉ BÉDªÉÉå ®Éä ®cÉÒ cÉä, iÉÖàcÉ®ä {ÉÉÊiÉ BÉEÉ BÉEÉä<Ç BÉÖEU xÉcÉÓ ÉʤÉMÉɽ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ, BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE ´Éä iÉÉä nä´ÉiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEä ®ÉVÉÉ cé* =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ <xpÉhÉÉÒ xÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE àÉé <ºÉÉÊãÉA xÉcÉÓ ®Éä ®cÉÒ ÉÊBÉE àÉä®ä {ÉÉÊiÉ BÉEcÉÓ SÉãÉä MɪÉä cé* ´Éä BÉEcÉÓ £ÉÉÒ MɪÉä cÉå, =xÉBÉEÉ iÉÉä ¤ÉÉãÉ £ÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉÆBÉEÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉ, ´Éä +ÉÉAÆMÉä, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ªÉc vÉ®iÉÉÒ BÉEÉ <xºÉÉxÉ xÉÉàÉ BÉEÉ |ÉÉhÉÉÒ, àÉÉxÉ´É xÉÉàÉ BÉEÉ |ÉÉhÉÉÒ º´ÉMÉÇãÉÉäBÉE BÉEä É˺ÉcɺÉxÉ {É® +ÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè, <ºÉBÉEÉÒ MÉÉÊiÉ nÉäxÉÉå iÉ®{ÉE cè* nä´ÉiÉÉ nä´ÉiÉÉ cÉÒ ®ciÉä cé, ®ÉFÉºÉ ®ÉFÉºÉ cÉÒ ®ciÉä cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ªÉc àÉÉxÉ´É BÉE¤É nä´ÉiÉÉ ¤ÉxÉ VÉɪÉä, BÉE¤É ®ÉFÉºÉ ¤ÉxÉ VÉɪÉä, BÉE¤É ®ÉàÉ ¤ÉxÉ VÉɪÉä, BÉE¤É ®É´ÉhÉ ¤ÉxÉ VÉɪÉä, BÉE¤É BÉßE­hÉ ¤ÉxÉ VÉɪÉä, BÉE¤É BÉEÆºÉ ¤ÉxÉ VÉɪÉä, BÉE¤É £ÉMÉ´ÉÉxÉ BÉEÉ °ô{É ãÉä ãÉä +ÉÉè® BÉE¤É ¶ÉèiÉÉxÉ ¤ÉxÉ VÉɪÉä, BÉÖEU BÉEcÉ xÉcÉÓ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ* मानव की दोनों प्रकार का प्रवृत्ति है। उस मानव की प्रवृत्ति को भय से युक्त रखने के लिए कि वह ऐसे अपराधों से बचे और समाज के अन्दर एक आदर्श रहे, वह तो रखना पड़ेगा, इसलिए कानून के अन्दर सख्त सजा का प्रावधान, फांसी की सजा का प्रावधान रहे।…(व्यवधान) 

        àÉé nÉä ÉÊàÉxÉ] BÉEÉ ºÉàÉªÉ +ÉÉè® +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉ ºÉÆ®FÉhÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ* सभापति महोदय : इस पर बहुत से माननीय सदस्य बोलना चाहते हैं।

प्रो. रासा सिंह रावत : मुझे बहुत खेद के साथ कहना पड़ता है कि जब हमारे सैनिक आतंकवादियों की गोलियों का शिकार बनते हैं, यहां गृह मंत्री जी विराजे हुए हैं, उनका भी मैं ध्यान आकर्षितकरना चाहूंगा कि जब कश्मीर की वादियों के अन्दर, जहां केसर की क्यारियों में कभी केसर महका करती थी, वहां आतंकवादियों के हाथों बेगुनाहों का खून बह रहा है। ऐसे समय में हमारे सैनिक अपने प्राणों की बाजी लगाकर उन आतंकवादियों को हिन्दुस्तान की सीमाओं से धकेलने का, खत्म करने या मौत के घाट उतारने का प्रयत्न करते हैं तब मानवाधिकारवादी बीच में आ जाते हैं कि उनके साथ ऐसा नहीं होना चाहिए, वैसा नहीं होना चाहिए। ऐसे ही मानवाधिकारवादी यू.एन.ओ. का नाम लेकर, कभी बगुला भगत बनकर और महान युग का नाम लेकर ऐसी बातें कहते हैं कि नहीं-नहीं, फांसी की सजा का प्रावधान नहीं होना चाहिए, इस प्रकार की बात कह देते हैं। परिणामस्वरूप हमारे सशस्त्र सैनिक बलों का आत्मबल भी गिरता है, जो देश के लिए सर्वस्व न्यौछावर करने को तैयार रहते हैं, चाहे वे लद्दाख के अन्दर हों, चाहे अरुणाचल प्रदेश के पहाड़ों के अन्दर हों अथवा कश्मीर की वादियों के अन्दर हों, चाहे सियाचिन के अन्दर हों। वे सब कुछ सहन करके देश की रक्षा करते हैं। आखिर ऐसा क्यों हो रहा है। जब भगत सिंह जैसे महान क्रान्तिकारी को फांसी की सजा हुई तो उस समय उनकी मां से कहा कि मां, तुम्हारे लाडले को फांसी की सजा हो रही है। उस समय भगत सिंह की मां ने कहा था:

“परवाह नहीं जो बन गई, बच्चे की जान पर, ABÉE iÉÉä BÉDªÉÉ, ãÉÉJÉ £ÉÉÒ cÉå iÉÉä ´ÉÉ® nÚÆ, £ÉÉ®iÉ BÉEÉÒ ¶ÉÉxÉ {É®*”[R41]            àÉé ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ <ºÉÉÊãÉA BÉEc ®cÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉå uÉ®É {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ näxÉä BÉEÉÒ ´ÉVÉc ºÉä cÉÒ £ÉMÉiÉ É˺Éc VÉèºÉä µÉEÉÆÉÊiÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ BÉEÉä  àÉcÉxÉ ¶ÉcÉÒnä+ÉÉVÉàÉ BÉEÉÒ {Én´ÉÉÒ ÉÊàÉãÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® =xcå {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ MɪÉÉÒ cÉäiÉÉÒ, iÉÉä ¶ÉɪÉn càÉå +ÉÉVÉÉnÉÒ <iÉxÉÉÒ VÉãnÉÒ |ÉÉ{iÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉä {ÉÉiÉÉÒ*  +ÉÉVÉÉnÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ãɽÉ<Ç BÉEä +ÉÆn® SÉÉcä SÉxp ¶ÉäJÉ® +ÉÉVÉÉn cÉä, SÉÉcä +ɶÉ{ÉEÉBÉE =ããÉÉ JÉÉÆ cÉä, SÉÉcä ®ÉàÉ |ɺÉÉn ÉÊ´ÉÉκàÉãÉ cÉä, <xÉ µÉEÉÆÉÊiÉBÉEÉÉÊ®ªÉÉå BÉEÉ {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEä iÉJiÉÉå {É® SÉfÃxÉÉ, <xÉBÉEÉ MÉÉäÉÊãɪÉÉÆ SÉÚàÉxÉÉ, ´Éc £ÉÉÒ càÉÉ®ä <ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA |Éä®hÉÉ»ÉÉäiÉ ¤ÉxÉ MɪÉÉ*  àÉÉxªÉ´É® àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ºÉä |ÉÉlÉÇxÉÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE VÉPÉxªÉ +É{É®ÉvÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉE~Éä® ºÉVÉÉ BÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ càÉÉ®ÉÒ ºÉÉÒ+ÉÉ®{ÉÉÒºÉÉÒ àÉå +ɴɶªÉ cÉä* {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ ¤É®BÉE®É® ®cxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* càÉ £ÉÉÒ ªÉcÉÒ BÉEciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE c® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEÉä iÉÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ VÉÉA, VÉèºÉÉ +É{É®ÉvÉ cÉäMÉÉ, ´ÉèºÉÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ ÉÊàÉãÉäMÉÉÒ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ AMVÉäà{ãÉä®ÉÒ {ÉÉÊxɶÉàÉå] BÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cÉä*         <xcÉÓ ¶É¤nÉå BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ àÉé +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉä ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ* +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä àÉÖZÉä ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä BÉEÉ +ɴɺɮ ÉÊnªÉÉ, <ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä vÉxªÉ´ÉÉn näiÉÉ cÚÆ*   श्री हन्नान मोल्लाह (उलूबेरिया) : सभापति महोदय, मैं आपका आभारी हूं कि आपने मुझे बोलने का मौका दिया। हमारे सांसद श्री चंद्रप्पन जी जो विधेयक लाए हैं और इसके जरिए जो चर्चा का मौका दिया, जो कि एक महत्वपूर्ण विषय है, मैं इसलिए आपका आभार व्यक्त करता हूं। इस विषय पर चर्चा होना जैसा कि रावत जी ने बताया, ऐसा एक मोटिव लगा, जैसे कुछ लोगों को फांसी हुयी, इसलिए इसे हम आज लाए हैं। मैं कहना चाहता हूं कि यह दो साल पुराना बिल है और इसे हम किसी मोटिव से नहीं लाए हैं। यह एक चर्चा का विषय है, इसलिएइसे लाए हैं। इसके पीछे कोई कारण नहीं है। यह एक सोच है। दुनिया के पैमाने पर यह सोच चल रही है। हम मानते हैं कि जीवन का अधिकार मौलिक अधिकार है। हमारे संविधान में भी जीवन का अधिकार है। क्योंकि हम किसी को जीवन दे नहीं सकते, इसलिए हमें जीवन लेने का हक है या नहीं, यह एक बहुत पुराना सवाल है।

        दूसरा सवाल यह है कि जब कहीं पर कोई अपराध होता है या कोई व्यक्ति अपराध करता है, तो व्यक्ति और समष्टि के व्यवहार में फर्क है। सभ्यता कोई एकक प्रयास नहीं है, बल्कि वह मश्रित प्रयास है। सब मिलकर समाज, देश और जाति को आगे बढ़ाते हैं, समाज का एक कलेक्टिव प्रयास होता है, जब कोई व्यक्ति गलत करता है और समष्टि उसी तरह गलत नहीं करता है, धीरे-धीरे समाज में इस तरह की चेतना दुनिया मे विकसित हो रही है। ऐसा नहीं है कि आज क्या होना चाहिए, कल क्या होना चाहिए, मगर समाज को विकास के साथ-साथ, सभ्यता के विकास के साथ-साथ जो आधुनिक और मानवीय सोच है, उसे बदलना पड़ता है। अब वह जमाना नहीं है। एक समाज पाश्विक होता था। जितना-जितना समय आगे बढ़ रहा है, समाज में मानवीय सोच का प्रभाव बढ़ता जा रहा है। इस द्ृष्टिकोण से यह कहना गलत नहीं है कि जब हम जीवन दे नहीं सकते, इसलिए हमें जीवन नहीं लेना चाहिए। एक अकेला कोई अपराध करता है, तो उसके लिए बदले की भावना से, जिसके पास पावर है और वह सब कुछ कर सकता है, जिसके पास ताकत है, उसे बदले की भावना से इसे इस्तेमाल नहीं करना चाहिए और सभ्यता के विकास में इस स्टेज में हमें आगे बढ़ना चाहिए, इसलिए ऐसा कहा गया। जैसा कि यूनाइटेड नेशंस से अपील की गयी थी कि दुनिया में १२९ देश इसको बंद कर चुके हैं और हर साल एक-दो देश इस अपील पर गौर कर रहे हैं और फैसला कर रहे हैं। इसलिए यह सोचना गलत है, ऐसी बात नहीं है। मेरा कहना है कि सभ्यता के विकास के साथ-साथ हमको और अधिक उदारवादी, मानवीय चिंता, जो सभ्यता के विकास में और जनता और दुनिया के बीच में आगे बढ़ रही है, इसके साथ सहमति व्यक्त करना ही सभ्यता को आगे बढ़ाने का तरीका है। [v42]          <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉÉxÉ´ÉÉÒªÉ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ +ÉÉVÉ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEä {ÉèàÉÉxÉä {É® SÉãÉ ®cä cé* =ºÉä +ÉÉè® àÉVɤÉÚiÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ £ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ BÉEÉä ¤ÉãÉ näxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* +É{É®ÉvÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ºÉVÉÉ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* VÉèºÉä ®É´É ºÉÉc¤É BÉEc ®cä lÉä ÉÊBÉE ºÉVÉÉ näxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÆn xÉcÉÓ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA, ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEä àÉxÉ àÉå b® {ÉènÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA +ÉÉè® =ºÉä +É{É®ÉvÉ ºÉä nÚ® ®JÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ºÉVÉÉ BÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* ºÉVÉÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊb]®é] BÉEÉÒ £ÉÚÉÊàÉBÉEÉ cè +ÉÉè® ºÉVÉÉ BÉEä uÉ®É +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ºÉÖvÉ®xÉä BÉEÉ àÉÉèBÉEÉ £ÉÉÒ ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè* ¤ÉSSÉÉ VÉ¤É UÉä]É cÉäiÉÉ cè iÉÉä àÉÉÆ +ÉÉè® nںɮä ãÉÉäMÉ £ÉÉÒ =ºÉä ¤ÉcÖiÉ {ªÉÉ® BÉE®iÉä cé, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ MÉãÉiÉÉÒ cÉäxÉä {É® àÉÉÆ £ÉÉÒ ¤ÉSSÉä BÉEÉÒ ÉÊ{É]É<Ç BÉE®iÉÉÒ cè* àÉÉÆ =ºÉä ¤ÉnãÉä BÉEÉÒ £ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ ºÉä ºÉVÉÉ xÉcÉÓ näiÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE ºÉÖvÉÉ®xÉä BÉEÉÒ £ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ ºÉä näiÉÉÒ cè ÉÊVɺɺÉä ´Éc ºÉcÉÒ ®ÉºiÉä {É® +ÉÉ VÉÉA* <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉÉxÉ´ÉÉÒªÉ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®  BÉEä oÉέ]BÉEÉähÉ ºÉä ªÉc |ɺiÉÉ´É ºÉcÉÒ cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉÉ®ä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå, ºÉÉÒ+ÉÉ®{ÉÉÒºÉÉÒ àÉå <ºÉBÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cè*  ªÉc ÉÊ¥ÉÉÊ]¶É ®ÉVÉ BÉEä VÉàÉÉxÉä ºÉä SÉãÉÉ +ÉÉ ®cÉ cè* <ºÉ ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå ÉÊ¥ÉÉÊ]¶É ®ÉVÉ BÉEÉ oÉέ]BÉEÉähÉ ºÉÉ©ÉÉVªÉ´ÉÉnÉÒ lÉÉ +ÉÉè® +ÉÉVÉ £ÉÉÒ ÉÊ¥ÉÉÊ]¶É ®ÉVÉ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉcÖiÉ ºÉÉÒ SÉÉÒVÉå càÉÉ®ä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå SÉãÉÉÒ +ÉÉ ®cÉÒ cé ÉÊVÉxcå ºÉÖvÉÉ®xÉä BÉEÉÒ VÉ°ô®iÉ cè* ªÉtÉÉÊ{É càÉxÉä ABÉE BÉEä ¤ÉÉn ABÉE ¤ÉcÖiÉ ºÉä ºÉÖvÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEA cé +ÉÉè® +ÉÉMÉä +ÉÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉä ÉÊnxÉÉå àÉå càÉå AäºÉÉÒ SÉÉÒVÉå fÚÆfBÉE® =xcå ¤ÉnãÉxÉä BÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ BÉE®xÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ* ÉÊ¥ÉÉÊ]¶É ®ÉVÉ àÉå VÉÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉä lÉä, ´Éä =xÉBÉEä ÉÊcºÉÉ¤É ºÉä ¤ÉxÉä lÉä* =xcå càÉÉ®ä nä¶É xÉä JÉÉÉÊ®VÉ BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® càÉ =xcå vÉÉÒ®ä-vÉÉÒ®ä ¤ÉnãÉ £ÉÉÒ ®cä cé* àÉé SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉä <ºÉ oÉέ]BÉEÉähÉ ºÉä näJÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA +ÉÉè® <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA càÉ <ºÉ |ɺiÉÉ´É BÉEÉ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉMÉiÉ +ÉÉè® xÉÉèÉÊiÉBÉE °ô{É ºÉä ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ BÉE®iÉä cé* <ºÉ ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå càÉÉ®ÉÒ ºÉÉäSÉ +ÉÉMÉä ¤ÉfÃxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA*         ÉÊcxnÖºiÉÉxÉ BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå {ÉÉÊxɶÉàÉé] BÉEÉ VÉÉä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cè, càÉÉ®ä ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ BÉEä +ÉÉÉÌ]BÉEãÉ 72 àÉå <ºÉBÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ xÉä =ºÉBÉEÉÒ +ÉÉÉÊJÉ®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉä àÉcÉÓ àÉÉxÉÉ cè* ÉÊVÉºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä càÉÉ®ä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå BÉEèÉÊ{É]ãÉ {ÉÉÊxɶÉàÉé] cè, =ºÉÉÒ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ càÉÉ®ä ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉå +ÉÉÉÌ]BÉEãÉ 72 cè* +ÉÉÉÌ]BÉEãÉ 72 BÉEciÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVɺÉä ºÉVÉÉ nÉÒ VÉÉAMÉÉÒ, ´Éc BÉE°ôhÉÉ ªÉÉ nªÉÉ BÉEÉÒ +É{ÉÉÒãÉ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* <ºÉàÉå =ºÉBÉEÉä BÉDãÉäàÉéºÉÉÒ BÉEÉ ®É<] ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* AäºÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cè ÉÊBÉE ABÉEnàÉ ºÉä +ÉÉbÇ® nä nÉä +ÉÉè® =ºÉä JÉiàÉ BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉA* <ºÉBÉEÉ BÉEÉ®hÉ ªÉc cè ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä xÉÉìÉÊàÉxÉÉÒ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉä cé, VÉÉä ®äªÉ®èº] +ÉÉì{ÉE nÉÒ ®äªÉ® BÉEäºÉ cÉäiÉÉ cè, =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉ´ÉVÉÚn £ÉÉÒ +ÉÉ]ÉÔBÉEãÉ 72 ÉÊ´ÉtÉàÉÉxÉ cè* <ºÉBÉEÉ àÉiÉãÉ¤É ªÉc cè ÉÊBÉE càÉÉ®ä ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ÉÊxÉàÉÉÇiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEä ÉÊnàÉÉàÉ àÉå ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ cÉäMÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉä ÉÊVÉiÉxÉÉ VªÉÉnÉ {ÉDãÉèBÉDºÉÉÒ¤ÉãÉ ªÉÉ xÉ®àÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè =iÉxÉÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* VÉèºÉä àÉßiªÉÖ nÆb {ÉɪÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ |ÉèVÉÉÒbé] BÉEä {ÉÉºÉ VÉÉBÉE® FÉàÉÉ àÉÉÆMÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* +ÉÉ]ÉÔBÉEãÉ 72 àÉä ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè -

 “(1) The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any persons convicted of any offence –

(a)    in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial;

(b)   in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;

(c)   in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.”   BÉEÉèxºÉ]ÉÒ]áÉÚ¶ÉxÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn® £ÉÉÒ +ÉÉ]ÉÔBÉEãÉ 72 <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA ®JÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE =ºÉä àÉÉxÉ´ÉÉÒªÉ oÉέ]BÉEÉähÉ ºÉä +ÉÉè® ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ {ÉDãÉèBÉDºÉÉÒ¤ÉãÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ <ºÉàÉå £ÉÉÒ BÉÖEU BÉEÆbÉÒ¶ÉxºÉ cé* ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç xÉä ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉä ÉÊBÉEºÉ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ àÉå BÉE®åMÉä* BÉEä´ÉãÉ <ºÉ {ÉÉ´É® BÉEÉä BÉEèÉʤÉxÉä] BÉEä cÉlÉÉå àÉå ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* =ºÉàÉå |ɶÉɺÉxÉ BÉEÉä nJÉãÉ+ÉÆnÉVÉÉÒ näxÉä BÉEÉ cBÉE cè* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ´Éc ÉÊbºÉÉÒVÉxÉ £ÉÉÒ VªÉÚbÉÒÉʶɪÉãÉ ÉÊ®BªÉÚ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè, =ºÉBÉEÉÒ BÉDãÉäàÉéºÉÉÒ {É® £ÉÉÒ BÉEÉä]Ç àÉå ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ® cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* ªÉc £ÉÉÒ ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç BÉEÉÒ àÉÉxªÉiÉÉ cè* <ºÉBÉEä ºÉÉlÉ ªÉc £ÉÉÒ näJÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE {ÉEèºÉãÉÉ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE ªÉÉ nãÉÉÒªÉ £ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ ºÉä ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè ªÉÉ xÉä¶ÉxÉãÉ <Æ]®äº] ªÉÉ <à{ÉÉÉ̶ɪÉãÉ oÉέ]BÉEÉähÉ ºÉä ÉʺÉ{ÉEÉÉÊ®¶É BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç cè*   [MSOffice43] हम यदि इमपार्शियल द्ृष्टिकोण से सिफारिश करते हैं, तो उसका ज्यूडशियरी रिव्यू नहीं लेते हैं। जब उसमें पार्शियैलिटी या कोई दूसरी भावना या गलतियां दिखाई देती हैं तभी हम ज्य़ूडशियरी रिव्यू लेते हैं। यह हमारे प्रोविजन को प्रयोग करने का तरीका है। हमारा कहना है कि इसको भावात्मक रूप से नहीं देखना है। यह एक आइडियोलाजिकल इश्यू है, मानवीय इश्यू है। इसलिए जिस तरह इस प्रस्ताव को लाया गया है, उसे नकारा नहीं जाना चाहिए। धीरे-धीरे हमारे समाज को उसी मानवीय समाज की ओर ले जाने के लिए ऐसा द्ृष्टिकोण अपनाना चाहिए, यही मेरा कहना है।

                                                                                 

श्री राम कृपाल यादव (पटना) माननीय सभापति महोदय, मैं माननीय सदस्य श्री सी.के. चन्द्रप्पन का आभार व्यक्त करना चाहता हूं, जिन्होंने गैर सरकारी सदस्यों के कार्य में इस विषय को लाकर चर्चा करायी है। निश्चित तौर पर हम सब आज एक गंभीर मसले पर चर्चा कर रहे हैं।मैं समझता हूं कि यह बहुत गंभीर मामला है। अभी पूर्ववर्ती माननीय सदस्य ने ठीक कहा कि हमारा जो कानून बना हुआ है, वह ब्रटिश राज का बनाया हुआ है। इस कानून को बने हुए ५८ वर्ष हो गये हैं। इन ५८ सालों में बहुत सारे ऐसे प्रावधान्स हैं जिनकी शायद सीआरपीसी में कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है । समय-समय पर सरकार इसका अहसास करती है और उसे अमैंड करने का काम भी करती रही है।

        सभापति महोदय, आज मृत्यदण्ड उत्सादन विधेयक, २००४ पर बड़े स्तर पर चर्चा हो रही है कि क्या आज के जमाने में मृत्युदंड देना सही है ? इस संबंध में कई बड़े विद्वानों के ओपीनियन्स आये हैं। कई महानुभावों के ओपीनियन्स आते रहे हैं। यह भी चर्चा होती रही है कि मृत्युदंड को समाप्त कर देना चाहिए। यह भी चर्चा हो रही है कि मृत्युदंड को समाप्त नहीं करना चाहिए। मैं समझता हूं कि परिवेश और समय में बदलाव आया है। मृत्युदंड निश्चित तौर पर एक बहुत ही कठोर दंड है। यह दंड बर्बर और अमानवीय है, इस बात को भी हम स्वीकारें, तो इसमें कोई दो मत नहीं है।

        जैसा कि ५८ वर्षों की आजादी के बाद हमारी मानसिकता में परिवर्तन हुआ है, हम आधुनिक प्रवृत्ति के होते रहे हैं, मैं समझता हूं कि खास तौर पर यह कहा जाता रहा है कि मृत्युदंड निश्चित तौर पर एक ऐसा दंड है, जो शायद मानव के लिए सही नहीं है। इसकी चर्चा आज हर स्तर पर हो रही है। संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ में इस पर गंभीर चर्चा हुई और एक निर्णय लिया गया कि मृत्युदंड को समाप्त कर देना चाहिए। इस पर देश भी चिंतन और मंथन करने का काम कर रहा है। मैं समझता हूं कि कोई भी अपराधी जन्म से अपराधी नहीं होता। समयवश परिस्थितियां बदलती हैं। हमने तमाम कई अपराधियों की कहानियां सुनी हैं और उनकी हमें जानकारी भी हैं। परिस्थितिवश अच्छे से अच्छा आदमी, वैज्ञानिक, लेक्चरार भी अपराध में संलिप्त हो जाता है। मृत्युदंड देकर ही केवल अपराध को खत्म कर दिया जाये, ऐसा मैं नहीं मानता हूं। मैं समझता हूं कि अगर उस अपराधी को सुधारने का अवसर देना है, तो हमारे कानून में जो आजीवन कारावास का प्रावधान है, वह काफी है। आजीवन कारावास बहुत बड़ी सजा है। जीवन के लंबे अर्से तक अगर वह कैदखाने में रहे, तो मैं समझता हूं कि वह अपराधी सुधर जायेगा। आम तौर पर यह देखा गया है कि आजीवन कारावास की सजा काटकर जो व्यक्ति बाहर आया है, वह आदमी काफी सुधर गया है। [MSOffice44]      =ºÉàÉä +É{É®ÉvÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ FÉàÉiÉÉ JÉiàÉ cÉä MɪÉÉÒ cè, =ºÉàÉå +É{É®ÉvɤÉÉävÉ £ÉÉÒ JÉiàÉ cÉä MɪÉÉ cè*  +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ªÉc VÉÉxÉBÉE® +ÉɶSɪÉÇ cÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE càÉÉ®ä nä¶É àÉå ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä 58 ºÉÉãÉÉå àÉå àÉÉjÉ 55 ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä cÉÒ ªÉc ºÉVÉÉ ÉÊàÉãÉÉÒ cè*  ªÉc cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ABÉE +ÉÉnàÉÉÒ BÉEä àÉxÉ àÉå VÉ¤É ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ ¤Éè~ VÉÉiÉÉÒ cè, iÉÉä =ºÉä càÉ àÉÉjÉ <ºÉ ºÉVÉÉ BÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä cÉÒ ~ÉÒBÉE BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉä cé*  àÉé ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ cÚÄ ÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ xÉä +ÉiªÉÉÊvÉBÉE +É{É®ÉvÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè, µÉEÚ® +É{É®ÉvÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè iÉÉä ªÉc xÉcÉÓ näJÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA ÉÊBÉE =ºÉBÉEä VÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ BÉEÉä cÉÒ ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉA, =ºÉä ºÉÖvÉ®xÉä BÉEÉ +ɴɺɮ ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* àÉé ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ cÚÄ ÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ® =ºÉä ºÉÖvÉ®xÉä BÉEÉ àÉÉèBÉEÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉA iÉÉä ÉÊxÉÉζSÉiÉ iÉÉè® {É® ´Éc ºÉÖvÉ® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè*  |ÉiªÉäBÉE BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ àÉå nÉä iÉ®c BÉEÉÒ £ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉAÆ ªÉÉ nÉä iÉ®c BÉEä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉi´É cÉäiÉä cé*  VÉ¤É BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEä +ÉSUä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉi´É {É® JÉ®É¤É BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉi´É cÉ´ÉÉÒ cÉä VÉÉiÉÉ cè, iÉ£ÉÉÒ ´Éc BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ ¤ÉxÉiÉÉ cè*  c® BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ àÉå <ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ nÉä £ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉAÆ cÉäiÉÉÒ cé*  <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEÉä ºÉÖvÉ®xÉä BÉEÉ àÉÉèBÉEÉ ÉÊàÉãÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA, <ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA =ºÉä +ɴɺɮ näxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*  VÉPÉxªÉ +É{É®ÉvÉ ÉÊBÉEA cÖA +É{É®ÉÉÊvɪÉÉå BÉEä ºÉÖvÉ®xÉä BÉEä =nÉc®hÉ näJÉxÉä BÉEÉä ÉÊàÉãÉiÉä ®cä cé +ÉÉè® <ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA ABÉE àÉÉcÉèãÉ ªÉÉ ´ÉÉiÉÉ´É®hÉ iÉèªÉÉ® BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA ÉÊVɺɺÉä ÉÊBÉE +É{É®ÉvɤÉÉävÉ ºÉä OÉÉʺÉiÉ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ £ÉÉÒ +É{ÉxÉä +ÉÉ{É àÉå ºÉÖvÉÉ® ãÉÉ ºÉBÉEä*  àÉßiªÉÖnhb VÉèºÉÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ BÉEÉä ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*  <ºÉ iÉ®c BÉEä VÉPÉxªÉ +É{É®ÉvÉ BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉä ãÉÉäMÉ £ÉÉÒ ºÉÖvÉ®å, <ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA àÉÉcÉèãÉ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*  ªÉc nhb ÉÊxÉÉζSÉiÉ iÉÉè® {É® ABÉE BÉE½É nhb cè, <ºÉºÉä ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä àÉÖBÉDiÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*  àÉé ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ cÚÄ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉä ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ BÉE®BÉEä £ÉÉÒ +É{É®ÉvÉ {É® ÉÊxɪÉxjÉhÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® +É{É®ÉÉÊvɪÉÉå BÉEÉä ºÉÖvÉÉ®É VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè*  <ºÉ µÉEÚ® nhb ºÉä ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä àÉÖBÉDiÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*  <ºÉÉÒ BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ àÉé gÉÉÒ SÉxp{{ÉxÉ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ªÉc ÉʤÉãÉ ãÉÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA vÉxªÉ´ÉÉn näiÉÉ cÚÄ*                                                                         श्री शैलेन्द्र कुमार (चायल): सभापति महोदय, आपने मुझे श्री सी.के. चन्द्रप्पन द्वारा लाए गए मृत्युदण्ड उत्सादन विधेयक, २००४ पर बोलने का अवसर दिया, इसके लिए मैं आपको धन्यवाद देता हूं।

        महोदय, पक्ष और विपक्ष, दोनों ओर से सम्मानित सदस्यों द्वारा फांसी की सजा बरकरार रखी जाए, समाप्त की जाए या इसके स्वरूप को बदला जाए, इस पर कई विचार सामने आए हैं और यह भी कहा गया है कि चूंकि ईश्वर ही जीवन देता है, इसलिए उसे ही जीवन लेने का अधिकार है। यह बात भी सत्य है, लेकिन अगर हम इसके दूसरे पहलू पर विचार करें तो हम इसे बनाए रखने पर मजबूर हो जाते हैं। यह प्रथा वर्ष १२६० में अमेरिका में आरंभ हुई और वहां से इसे अन्य देशों में एडॉप्ट किया गया। इसी तरह अपने देश में भी इस प्रथा को लागू किया गया। दूसरी तरफ सुप्रीम कोर्ट के हमारे एक सम्मानित वकील डा०जनकराज जय जी ने एक पुस्तक लिखी है और उन्होंने एवं कई अन्य विद्वानों ने यह विचार सामने रखा कि फांसी की सजा को समाप्त किया जाए। डा०जनकराज ने "डेथ पेनाल्टी" नाम से एक पुस्तक लिखी है। राष्ट्रपति जी से भी इस विषय पर विचार लिया गया तो उन्होंने अपने विचार-उद्गार व्यक्त करते हुए कहा कि इस पर सदन में एक आम सर्वदलीय बहस होनी चाहिए। उन्होंने यह विचार भी व्यक्त किया कि यदि कोई इस तरह का जघन्य अपराध करता है और उसकी फांसी की सजा क्षमा कर दी जाए, तो इस बात की कोई गारन्टी नहीं है कि वह सुधर जाएगा। वह भविष्य में फिर से उसी तरह के अपराध कर सकता है। यह एक प्रश्नचिन्ह हमारे सामने है। इस पर भी हम सभी को बड़ी गंभीरता से विचार करना होगा। अभी मैं देख रहा था कि ब्रिटेन सहित दुनिया के लगभग ७० देशों में इस सजा को समाप्त कर दिया गया है।[H45]  +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ BÉEä BÉÖEU ®ÉVªÉÉå àÉå {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ BÉEÉä ÉʤÉãBÉÖEãÉ ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® ´ÉcÉÆ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ BÉEÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ xÉcÉÓ ºÉÖxÉÉ<Ç MÉ<Ç cè* càÉÉ®ä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉÊ´ÉnÉå ºÉä +ÉÉè® +ÉxªÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå ºÉä VÉÉä ´ÉèSÉÉÉÊ®BÉE ºÉÖZÉÉ´É +ÉÉA cé, =ºÉºÉä ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉ àÉiÉ ºÉÉàÉxÉä +ÉɪÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE àÉÉèiÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ BÉEä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ BÉEÉä ¤É®BÉE®É® ®JÉÉ VÉÉA* nä¶É BÉEä ÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ gÉÉÒ cƺɮÉVÉ £ÉÉ®uÉVÉ xÉä £ÉÉÒ ºÉÖZÉÉ´É ÉÊnªÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE àÉÉèiÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ ¤É®BÉE®É® ®JÉÉÒ VÉÉA* 16.41 hrs.                  (Smt.  Krishna Tirath in the Chair)         +É£ÉÉÒ càÉÉ®ä BÉÖEU ºÉÉÉÊlɪÉÉå xÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE ªÉc iÉªÉ cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ BÉEɮɴÉÉºÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉA ªÉÉ àÉÉèiÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ nÉÒ VÉÉA* +ÉMÉ® àÉÉèiÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ näxÉÉÒ cè iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉDªÉÉ iÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ +ÉÉè® +É{ÉxÉɪÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* <ºÉÉÒ ºÉnxÉ àÉå {ÉcãÉä £ÉÉÒ <ºÉ {É® SÉSÉÉÇ cÖ<Ç lÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® BÉEcÉ MɪÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE <ÆVÉäBÉD¶ÉxÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉA ªÉÉ ÉÊ{ÉE® +ÉÉVÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ BÉEɮɴÉÉºÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ ºÉÖxÉÉ<Ç VÉÉA* càÉå nںɮÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE <ºÉ {ÉcãÉÚ BÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE £ÉÉÒ näJÉxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE nä¶É àÉå µÉEÉ<àÉ ®ä] ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ ¤ÉfÃÉ ®cÉ cè* +É£ÉÉÒ càÉÉ®ä ABÉE ÉÊàÉjÉ xÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE MÉÖ½MÉÉÆ´É àÉå ABÉE AäºÉÉ +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ {ÉBÉE½É MɪÉÉ, VÉÉä ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ +ÉBÉEäãÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEÉä {ÉBÉE½iÉÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEä {ÉÉºÉ SÉÉcä 500 âó{ÉA cÉå, 5000 âó{ÉA cÉå ªÉÉ 500000 âó{ÉA cÉå, =ºÉä àÉÉ®BÉE® {ÉèºÉä ãÉäBÉE® ãÉÉ¶É BÉEÉä MÉ]® àÉå bÉãÉ näiÉÉ lÉÉ* <ºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä =ºÉxÉä 28 ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä àÉÉ®BÉE® MÉ]® àÉå bÉãÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ +ÉÉè® VÉ¤É MÉ]® BÉEÉÒ iÉãÉɶÉÉÒ ãÉÉÒ MÉ<Ç iÉÉä =xÉ ºÉ£ÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ãÉɶÉå ÉÊxÉBÉEãÉÉÓ* BÉDªÉÉ AäºÉä ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä +ÉÉ{É {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ ºÉä àÉÖBÉDiÉ BÉE®åMÉä* =ºÉ +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ BÉEÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ ÉÊàÉãÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA ªÉÉ xÉcÉÓ, ªÉc ºÉÉäSÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè* càÉ ABÉE iÉ®{ÉE näJÉiÉä cé ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä ºÉVÉɪÉÉ{ÉDiÉÉ cè, =ºÉä AäºÉÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ xÉ nÉÒ VÉÉA, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ nںɮÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE VÉÉä {ÉÉÒÉʽiÉ {ÉFÉ cè, =ºÉä ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ BÉE­] cè, =ºÉ {É® BÉDªÉÉ MÉÖVÉ®ÉÒ cè, <ºÉ {ÉcãÉÚ BÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE £ÉÉÒ càÉå vªÉÉxÉ näxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ*         +É£ÉÉÒ ®ÉàÉ BÉßE{ÉÉãÉ ªÉÉn´É VÉÉÒ xÉä ~ÉÒBÉE BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE nä¶É BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉVÉÉnÉÒ ºÉä ãÉäBÉE® +É¤É iÉBÉE BÉÖEãÉ 55 ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ nÉÒ MÉ<Ç cè, ÉÊVÉxÉàÉå àÉcÉiàÉÉ MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® <ÆÉÊn®É MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ BÉEä ciªÉÉ®ä £ÉÉÒ ¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ cé* ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä nºÉ ´É­ÉÇ àÉå BÉEä´ÉãÉ nºÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ nÉÒ MÉ<Ç* ºÉxÉ 2002 ºÉä ãÉäBÉE® 2004 iÉBÉE 528 ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä àÉÉèiÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ ºÉÖxÉÉ<Ç MÉ<Ç, ´Éä SÉÉcå ãÉÉä+É® BÉEÉä]Ç ºÉä cÉ<Ç BÉEÉä]Ç +ÉÉè® ÉÊ{ÉE® ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç MÉA cÉå, =xÉàÉå ºÉä BÉEä´ÉãÉ ABÉE BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEÉä cÉÒ {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ ÉÊàÉãÉÉÒ cè* nںɮÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE VÉÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ {ÉFÉ cè, =ºÉ {É® £ÉÉÒ càÉå vªÉÉxÉ näxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ ºÉJiÉ cè +ÉÉè® ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ ãÉSÉÉÒãÉÉ cè*         àÉä®ÉÒ VÉÉxÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ àÉå ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉxÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEä {ÉÉºÉ {ÉèºÉÉ cè, SÉÉcä VÉÉxÉä ªÉÉ +ÉxÉVÉÉxÉä àÉå =xɺÉä BÉEÉä<Ç +É{É®ÉvÉ cÉä VÉÉA, ´Éä {Éè®´ÉÉÒ BÉE®BÉEä BÉE®ÉÒ¤É-BÉE®ÉÒ¤É UÚ] VÉÉiÉä cé* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ VÉÉä MÉ®ÉÒ¤É cè, ÉÊVɺÉBÉEä {ÉÉºÉ {ÉèºÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cè ÉÊBÉE ´Éc {Éè®´ÉÉÒ BÉE®É ºÉBÉEä, =ºÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ ÉÊàÉãÉ VÉÉiÉÉÒ cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä ªÉc ABÉE +ÉÉÉÌlÉBÉE {ÉcãÉÚ £ÉÉÒ cè, ÉÊVÉºÉ {É® càÉå vªÉÉxÉ näxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ*         àÉé BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É MÉ®ÉÒ¤É BÉEä {ÉÉºÉ VÉÉBÉE® ÉÊ´ÉBÉEÉºÉ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉE®å iÉÉä ´Éc ªÉcÉÒ BÉEciÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE àÉÖZÉä <xºÉÉ{ÉE xÉcÉÓ ÉÊàÉãÉÉ, ÉÊ´ÉBÉEÉºÉ nںɮÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè* ªÉc ABÉE +ÉÉàÉ SÉSÉÉÇ cè* +ÉÉ{É MÉ®ÉÒ¤ÉÉå BÉEä {ÉÉºÉ VÉÉAÆ, MÉÉÆ´ÉÉå àÉå VÉÉAÆ iÉÉä ªÉcÉÒ =xɺÉä ºÉÖxÉxÉä BÉEÉä ÉÊàÉãÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE =ºÉxÉä ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ SÉÉÒVÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉEcÉÓ +ÉÉ´ÉänxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ =ºÉä <xºÉÉ{ÉE xÉcÉÓ ÉÊàÉãÉÉ* <ºÉºÉä ªÉcÉÒ ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä´ÉãÉ UÉä]ä ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEä ÉÊãÉA cÉÒ ¤ÉxÉÉ cè, BÉEàÉVÉÉä® ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ¤ÉxÉÉ cè, +ÉàÉÉÒ®Éå BÉEä ÉÊãÉA xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉxÉÉ cè* =nÉc®hÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA +É{É´ÉÉn cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉä cé, <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉå BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE £ÉÉÒ vªÉÉxÉ näxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ*         àÉé SÉxp{{ÉxÉ VÉÉÒ ºÉä ªÉcÉÒ BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉ càÉÉ®ä nä¶É àÉå {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ cè* =ºÉºÉä BÉEÉä<Ç £ÉÉÒ +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ cÉä, ´Éc b® ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE àÉÖZÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ cÉä VÉÉAMÉÉÒ ªÉÉ =©É BÉEèn cÉä VÉÉAMÉÉÒ* +ÉÉVÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ BÉEɮɴÉÉºÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ BÉEä àÉÉàÉãÉä àÉå BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEÉÒ =©É näJÉÉÒ VÉÉiÉÉÒ cè* +ÉMÉ® ´Éc 65 ºÉÉãÉ BÉEÉ cè iÉÉä 24 PÉÆ]ä BÉEÉ=Æ] ÉÊBÉEA VÉÉiÉä cé, ÉÊ{ÉE® ´Éc +É{ÉxÉä {ÉÉÊ®´ÉÉ® BÉEä ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ ºÉnºªÉ BÉEÉÒ ¶ÉÉnÉÒ ªÉÉ +ÉxªÉ +ɴɺɮÉå {É® {Éè®ÉäãÉ {É® £ÉÉÒ ÉÊ®cÉ cÉä VÉÉiÉÉ cè, ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉÒ ÉʺÉ{ÉEÉÉÊ®¶É càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ £ÉÉÒ BÉE®iÉä cé* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉVÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ BÉEɮɴÉÉºÉ ºÉJiÉ ºÉVÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* VÉ¤É ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEÉä ªÉc {ÉiÉÉ SÉãÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ªÉc +É{É®ÉvÉ BÉE®xÉä {É® àÉÖZÉä àÉÉèiÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ ÉÊàÉãÉäMÉÉÒ iÉÉä ´Éc b®äMÉÉ +ÉÉè® +É{É®ÉvÉ {É® BÉÖEU +ÉÆBÉÖE¶É ãÉMÉäMÉÉ* ÉÊVÉºÉ ÉÊnxÉ +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä ªÉc ºÉVÉÉ ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ BÉE® nÉÒ, +ÉÉ{É näJÉ ãÉäxÉÉ nä¶É àÉå +É{É®ÉvÉ BÉEÉ OÉÉ{ÉE nÉäMÉÖxÉÉ-ÉÊiÉMÉÖxÉÉ ¤Éfà VÉÉAMÉÉ*[R46]  BÉEcÉÓ £ÉÉÒ BÉEÉä<Ç +ÉÆBÉÖE¶É xÉcÉÓ ãÉMÉÉ, iÉÉä +É{É®ÉvÉÉå BÉEÉÒ ºÉÆJªÉÉ ¤ÉfÃiÉÉÒ VÉÉAMÉÉÒ* <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉå <ºÉBÉEä c® {ÉcãÉÚ {É® ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ® BÉE®xÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ +ÉÉè® BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ näJÉxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ* +ÉÉ{É näÉÊJɪÉä ÉÊBÉE ¤ÉcÖiÉ ºÉä +É{É®ÉvÉÉå àÉå 20-25-30 ºÉÉãÉÉå BÉEä ¤ÉÉn £ÉÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉä {ÉÉ<Ç cè* ºÉä¶ÉxÉ BÉEÉä]Ç ºÉä cÉ<Ç-BÉEÉä]Ç +ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç iÉBÉE àÉÉàÉãÉÉ MɪÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ºÉàɪɤÉr iÉ®ÉÒBÉEä ºÉä xªÉÉªÉ xÉcÉÓ ÉÊàÉãÉ {ÉÉ ®cÉ cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉå näJÉxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ºÉ£ÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ºÉàÉªÉ ºÉä xªÉÉªÉ ÉÊàÉãÉä, SÉÉcä ´Éc BÉEàÉVÉÉä® ´ÉMÉÇ BÉEÉ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ cÉä ªÉÉ ¶ÉÉäÉÊ­ÉiÉ cÉä* càÉå ªÉc £ÉÉÒ näJÉxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä ¤ÉcÖiÉ ÉÊPÉxÉÉèxÉä ºÉÉàÉÉÉÊVÉBÉE +É{É®ÉvÉ cÖA cé ÉÊVÉxcå càÉ näJÉ £ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ ºÉBÉEiÉä, AäºÉä +É{É®ÉvÉÉå {É® ãÉMÉÉàÉ ãÉMÉä* +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä näJÉÉ cÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE vÉxÉÆVÉªÉ SÉ]VÉÉÔ xÉä ÉÊBÉEºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉ +É{É®ÉvÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ, càÉå AäºÉä +É{É®ÉvÉÉå BÉEÉä ®ÉäBÉExÉä BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå £ÉÉÒ ºÉÉäSÉxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ* <ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä +É{É®ÉvÉ VÉ¤É càÉÉ®ä nä¶É àÉå cÉä ®cä cé iÉÉä =xcå ®ÉäBÉExÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA £ÉÉÒ càÉå ºÉÉäSÉxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ* ªÉcÉÆ càÉ BÉEc ®cä cé ÉÊBÉE {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ BÉEÉä JÉiàÉ BÉE® näxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ªÉc ºÉÖZÉÉ´É ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ xÉä xÉcÉÓ ÉÊnªÉÉ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉnãÉä BÉEÉèxɺÉÉ iÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ +É{ÉxÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA ÉÊVɺɺÉä <ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä +É{É®ÉvÉ xÉ cÉå* ªÉc ¤ÉcÖiÉ cÉÒ àÉci´É{ÉÚhÉÇ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè* àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ºÉÉÒ.BÉEä.SÉxp{{ÉxÉ VÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® ºÉ£ÉÉÒ ºÉààÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ºÉnºªÉ ¤ÉiÉÉAÆ ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉèxɺÉÉ iÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ +É{ÉxÉɪÉÉ VÉÉA ÉÊVɺɺÉä +É{É®ÉvÉÉå {É® ãÉMÉÉàÉ ãÉMÉ ºÉBÉEä* {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉVÉÉ cè iÉÉä <iÉxÉä +É{É®ÉvÉ cé, JÉiàÉ cÉä VÉÉAMÉÉ iÉÉä =ºÉ ÉÊnxÉ BÉDªÉÉ cÉäMÉÉ, <ºÉ {É® càÉå ºÉÉäSÉxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ* ºÉ£ÉÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE ºÉä ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ® +ÉÉ ®cä cé, càÉå <ºÉ {É® MÉÆ£ÉÉÒ®iÉÉ ºÉä ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ® BÉE®BÉEä BÉEÉä<Ç ®ÉºiÉÉ ÉÊxÉBÉEÉãÉxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ*                                                                         SHRI B. MAHTAB (CUTTACK):   I thank you, Madam Chairperson, for allowing me to participate in this deliberation of Private Members’ Bill moved by Shri Chandrappan.  He has made a very emotive appeal  while presenting this Bill before the House. 

            At the outset, I differ with him on what he has narrated and the points which he has made.  But when I will be concluding my speech, I also have some points which are in tune with Shri Chandrappan’s viewpoint. 

            Throughout ages, many cultures in every part of the world have used capital punishment for grave offences.  It is reported that only 76 countries and territories retain the right today to use death penalty. Amnesty International has stated in 2003 that 28 out of these States have executed 1146 prisoners and 2756 people were sentenced to death.   Of all known executions in 2003, 84 per cent took place in four countries.  There were 726 such people in China, 108 people in Iran, 65 people in the United States of America and 64 people in Vietnam.   The first attempt by the international community on abolition of death penalty or simply minimizing the use of it was in 1948 with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As UN Charter has defined that the United Nations created after the Second World War was to prevent unnecessary death.  The Universal Declaration further clarified that goal stating in article 3 that “Everyone has the right to life.”[MSOffice47]  Since December 1948, 120 Member-States have abolished the death penalty either in law or in practice. Many States are encouraging others to abolish it.  The European States, especially, are some of the strongest forces within the United Nations to abolish the death penalty.  The European Parliament has declared that it considers capital punishment as “inhuman, medieval form of punishment and unworthy of modern society”.   What is the position today?  Madam, 120 countries have abolished the death penalty either in law or in practice; 85 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes;  and 11 countries have abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes. There the death sentence is given only under military law or for treason or for crimes committed under exceptional circumstances.  Twenty-four countries have abolished it in practice.  India, our country, is among the 76 countries which have retained the death penalty.  Referring to it the Mover of the Bill said that we are in a minority. But we are in good company. 

            No statistics is available on  the death penalties in India.  Of course, some hon. Members have mentioned some figures.  But I would like to hear it from the hon. Home Minister.  As far as I know, no fool proof  statistics is available regarding this.  It is reported in one Law Commission Report that 55 executions have taken place in Independent India. But this is doubtful.  I was intrigued to find in Appendix 34 of the Law Commission of India’s Report 1967 that 1422 executions had taken place in ten years, between 1953 and 1963 in 16 States of India.  Then how can you come to a conclusion that only 55 executions have taken place in Independent India?  I would request the hon. Minister to clarify this. 

            Capital punishment has been the hot topic for debate since time immemorial.  It was there even during Lord Buddha’s time.  I have some specific questions.  Can the society decide to kill one of its unruly members? Will a murder result again in murder? Does the society have this right? These are basic questions on which this debate on capital punishment is going on for the last several years. 

            Today, around fifty mercy petitions are there before the hon. President. … (Interruptions)  If it is less than that, I stand corrected.  The Supreme Court, in 1983, has ruled that capital punishment should be given only in cases qualifying as “rarest of rare”.  Shri Chandrappan has mentioned that hangman’s noose is in the news today.  Whether you intend it or not, it is in the news today.  It has long been in the conscience of legislators, of judges and of thinking public.  For me the truth is that the death penalty is not so much of a legal or constitutional issue. It is a sociological one.  It evokes divergent responses in different people.  There are abolitionists and there are anti-abolitionists.  For some it is a matter of conscience.  But we are aware that abolitionists have a strong lobby in this world.[MSOffice48]  In the world today there are fewer and fewer persons condemned to death.   More and more are executed for political views. 

            The main plank of the anti-abolitionists is that the death sentence has a deterrent effect, not by the fear of death, but exciting in the community a deep feeling of abhorrance for the crime of murder. 

            Hon. Members have said today that instead of death penalty, life imprisonment be practised.  But when known and hardened criminals are sentenced to imprisonment for life, and if they are set free through paroles and remissions only after a few years of incarceration, what is the point of that order?

            In 1973 – I would have been happier if somebody would have referred to 1973 -- the new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force.  Prior to that, the death penalty was ordinarily the law of the land and life imprisonment was an exception.  After 1973, the general rule today in our country is that the offender, who has been convicted under Section 302, IPC or with the aid of Section 34, IPC should be awarded life imprisonment and death penalty has become an exception.    Which is the rarest of rare is always a question of fact depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.  

            The number of murders, the manner of committing the murder, the weapons used, whether the offender has taken the benefit of defencelessness of the victim etc. are some of the guiding principles which have been laid down by the Supreme Court for courts below.   With the passage of time, the Supreme Court has crystallized the cases in which the death penalty should be awarded.     

            The hon. Member, Shri Chandrappan’s Bill is an utopian idea that the society should strive to do away with death penalty.   I believe that one day the Supreme Court will accept that when the State punishes with death, it denies the humanity and dignity of the victim.  I hope the Supreme Court will accept this one day. That will be a great day for our country and for our courts.  There are many in our country who would like to see these sentiments being uttered.   I hope, one day it will come. But this can only happen when the system of criminal justice effectively ensures that persons who would have been hanged, would not return to society until reformed.

            We have seen people die because of grievous crimes.   Innocent people have lost their lives.  Heinous crimes have been committed and these are the rarest of rare cases.   We have witnessed here in Delhi and in different parts of this country.  Strict measures are required and fear for the law is also required.  But the idea that has been floated by Shri C.K. Chandrappan is a utopian idea.  We should strive to achieve that how far fetched it may be.

           

SHRI S.K. KHARVENTHAN (PALANI): Madam Chairman, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to participate in the discussion on the abolition of capital punishment Capital punishment is the lawful infliction of death as punishment.  It is prevailing for thousands of years.  In the year 1500, in England, only serious offences like treason, murder, burglary, rape and arson carried death penalty.  Even in India those days - Manu Smriti also enunciated about the death penalty - murderers were never tolerated in the society.  Kautilaya stated in Arthashastra about sentence to death by various means for murder. [a49]  17.00 hrs. Kalidasa stated in Raghuvansam that murder was legally punishable by death. In India, Section 354, sub-clause (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reads:

“When any person is sentenced to death, the sentences shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead.”   There are so many directions in the Act. Section 235, sub-clause (2), Sections 368,  369 and 370 provide enough safeguards concerning death sentences. The matter will be referred to the High Court for confirmation. Appeal provision is there. Then, appeal provision to the Supreme Court is also there. Even according to Section 354, sub-clause (3), the court has to give a detailed explanation why instead of giving other punishments they are awarding the punishment of death.   As per Article 72 of our Constitution, the President of India has the power to grant pardon and to suspend, remit or commute sentences imposed on persons convicted for capital punishment in certain cases.

For example, I want to mention one case of Boya Gundlayya S/o Gundlappa Hanumappa when hon. Dr. Rajendra Prasad was the President of India. Gundlayya was convicted for death. He filed a mercy petition before the hon. President of India. In that murder case, there were three witnesses. Except the complainant, three witnesses’ names were not found in the FIR.  After discussing the case elaborately, the hon. President of India referred back that case to the Home Ministry for re-look on 4.6. 1959. After receipt of the opinion on 10.6.1959, the mercy petition was allowed; the sentence was altered to life imprisonment since the witnesses’ names were not found  in the FIR. For that reason only, it was allowed. So, in those days, it was considered in a serious manner.  Now, throughout the world, there is a debate to abolish capital punishment. Our hon. Member Shri Chandrappan has moved this Bill for abolition.  The time has come to have a re-look at capital punishment. Either it has to be abolished or to be suspended. That is my view. 

In this context, I want to mention that in the U.K., on October 28, 1965 in the Parliament, a Private Member’s Bill was introduced by Mr. Sydney Silverman in the labour Government headed by Harold Wilson. The Bill was accepted and Royal Assent was received on 9.11.1965. Death penalty was suspended for five years and then it was taken away totally.  In the year 1853, Venezuela abolished the death penalty, in the year 1867, Portugal abolished the death penalty. These were the countries which abolished the death penalty. In the United States of America, Michigan was the first State to abolish death penalty in the year 1847. Now, throughout the world, 104 countries  have abolished death penalty. 35 countries - even though it is in their Statute Books - suspended it.  In 57 countries, death penalty is continuing.

According to Mahatma Gandhi’s version, “God alone can take life because he alone gives it”.  Why shall death penalty be suspended or removed?  Nowadays, the trend of the criminal delivery system is that the police want to file  charge-sheet within six hours and the Judges want to deliver judgement within six days and give a Press statement saying that the District Judge delivered the judgement within six days. The point is that innocent people are not safe in the hands of the hurried  Judiciary. That is my view. To support my view, I want to mention the case of Harbans Singh versus the State of Uttar Pradesh (1982). I want to mention this case and complete my deliberation. Hon. Justice P.N. Bhagwati observed this case for Judicial vagaries in the imposition of death sentence. In that case, there were three accused – one Jeeta Singh, one Kashmira Singh and one Harbans Singh. The three accused murdered four persons with common intention. It was the same occurrence and the overtacts were the same. All were convicted for death sentence. They preferred a Special Leave Petition before the hon. Supreme Court of India separately. They engaged separate lawyers. They filed separate petitions. Jeeta Singh filed a petition and that petition came up before hon. Justice Chandrachud, hon. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and hon. Justice N.L. Utwala. They dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Kashmira Singh’s petition came up before Justice Fazal Ali, Justice P.N. Bhagwati.[R50]              The Special Leave Petition was allowed with regard to the question of death sentence and after the hearing, the death sentence was taken away and it was commuted as life imprisonment. Then, Harbans Singh filed a Special Leave Petition and that petition came up before Justice Sarkaria and Justice Singhla. They rejected the Special Leave Petition on the 16th October, 1972. Both Jeeta Singh and Harbans Singh were to be hanged, but luckily Harbans Singh challenged the death sentence by way of  Writ Petition before the hon. Supreme Court stating that Kashmira Singh’s death sentence was altered to life imprisonment, but Jeeta Singh’s punishment was confirmed as death penalty.

So, Harbans Singh filed a Writ Petition and that Writ Petition came before Justice Sarkaria. The problem was that the Supreme Court Registry failed to mention the judgement relating to Kashmira Singh in the records and so the judges were also not aware of the judgement in Kashmira Singh’s case. Then, after hearing the Writ Petition of Harbans Singh, they came to know that the death sentence of one of the accused in the same case was modified as life imprisonment. So, the hon. Supreme Court ordered that Harbans Singh should not be hanged and commuted his penalty to life imprisonment. This goes to show that even judicial mistake also can take the life of an individual. This is the situation prevailing in this country.

            So, my view is, ‘an eye for an eye’ or ‘a tooth for a tooth’ attitude is not correct. For example, in the case of Allaudin vs State of Bihar, even the hon. Supreme Court observed that the death penalty should be given in only those exceptional cases in which the crime is so brutal. Even in brutal cases now life imprisonment is given. Instead of giving life imprisonment for 10 years or 12 years, it may be given for 25 years or 30 years till the convicted person is reformed in jail.

Sir, there was a discussion here about paying compensation to the victim. I would like to submit that the accused has to compulsorily give compensation to the affected person. If he is not able to give, then his property should be seized by the State and the State should give the compensation to the victim.

            So, I would like to submit that the death penalty should either be removed from the Statute Book or even if it remains in the Statute Book, it should be suspended. This is my view.

         

डॉ. सत्यनारायण जटिया (उज्जैन) : माननीय सभापति महोदया, यह जो मृत्युदंड उत्सादन विधेयक, २००४ एबॉलिशन ऑफ कैपिटल पनिशमैन्ट बिल, २००४ सदन में लाया गया है, इसमें कहा गया है कि मृत्युदंड का एतद् द्वारा उत्साद किया जाता है। परंतु यह समाज की आदर्श स्थिति है और आदर्श कोई एक दिन में नहीं आता। हमारे यहां एक आदर्श समाज की कल्पना करते हुए यह मान्यता है - न राज्यम्, न राजासी, जो राज्य की व्यवस्था नहीं होगी, न कोई राजा होगा। न दंडो नचदंडिता, न कोई दंड का विधान होगा और न कोई दंड देने वाला होगा। धर्मणेयो प्रजा सर्वे - सब लोग सच्चरित्र, सदाचारयुक्त आचरण करेंगे और एक-दूसरे की ही रक्षा करने में भी समर्थ हो जायेंगे। निश्चित रूप से यह आदर्श स्थिति होनी ही चाहिए, किन्तु इसके लिए जो परिवेश चाहिए, उस परिवेश के निर्माण का काम राज्य का है। किन्तु हम देख रहे हैं कि जो मनुष्य है, धीरे-धीरे उसमें विकार आते जा रहे हैं और ये विकार आने के अनेक कारण हैं। इसलिए इन विकारों को दूर करने का उपायकरना जरूरी है। कोई अपराध क्यों करता होगा। कोई अपराध इसलिए करता है कि शायद उसकी शिक्षा नही है। इसलिए कि उसके लिए कोई रोजगार नहीं है, उसके गुजारे का कोई प्रबंध नहीं है। परिवेश का कोई संस्कार भी नहीं है और इसके कारण वह अपराध करने को प्रवृत्त होता है। इसलिए यह होना चाहिए कि उसके लिए शिक्षा का प्रबंध हो। जिससे कि वह अपने लिए समाज को समझने की कोशिश करे और उसके गुजारे के लिए कोई रोजगार का प्रबंध हो जाए। आवश्यक आजीविका और उपार्जन करने के लिए उसके पास पर्याप्त प्रबंध हो। इसलिए संस्कारयुक्त सामाजिक परिवेश का निर्माण करना राज्य का दायित्व है। हम देख रहे हैं कि अपराध बढ़ते चले जा रहे हैं। न्यायालयों में प्रकरणों की संख्या बहुत ज्यादा बढ़ रही है और न्याय, निर्णय की जो पद्धति है, उसके माध्यम से जो न्याय मिलता है, उस न्याय में भी काफी विलम्ब हो रहा है। इसलिए सब प्रकार से इस असंतोष को शांत करने के लिए नानाविद् जो उपाय करने चाहिए, उन उपायों को करने में हम जितना सफल होंगे, उतना ही हम समाज में एक आदर्श स्थिति लाने का काम कर सकेंगे[MSOffice51] । इसलिए इस आदर्श स्थिति को , समाज की इस संरचना को बनाये रखने के लिए समाज की जो संरचना दिन प्रतदिन क्षत-विक्षत हो रही है, उसे समाप्त करने के लिए भारत के संविधान की जो प्रीएम्बिल है, उसके बारे में हम विचार करें तो उसमें संस्कृति की कल्पना की गई है और उसमें कहा गया है: हम भारत के लोग भारत को एक सम्पूर्ण प्रभुता सम्पन्न समाजवादी धर्मनिरपेक्ष लोकतंत्र के लिए तथा इसके समस्त नागरिकों को, सभी लोगों को सामाजिक आर्थिक तथा राजनैतिक रूप से न्याय देने की बात की गई है। सामाजिक, आर्थिक तथा राजनैतिक न्याय वाली जो बात कही गई है, उसमें मैं कहूंगा कि जहां सामाजिक समता के पक्षधर नहीं होंगे, सामाजिक विषमता को लाने के लिए सामाजिक समता को कुचलने का जो काम करेंगे, वहां अन्याय होगा। आर्थिक अन्याय की जो बात कही गई है, उसमें भी अर्थ के लिए जो-जो भी अर्थ को प्राप्त करने के लिए नानावित उपाय करते हैं, उसमें जिस प्रकार का षडयंत्र करते हैं, एक-दूसरे के जीवन को खतरा पहुंचाने का काम करते हैं, उसके कारण भी अपराध होता है। हम देख रहे हैं कि राजनैतिक अन्याय की जो बात है, वोट की राजनीति के लिए, वोट को प्राप्त करने के लिए क्या-क्या उपाय हो रहे हैं, उसको देखकर ही हम लोग अचम्भित हैं। मौलिक रूप से, सैद्धांतिक रुप से जो हमने कल्पना की थी, उसको पूरा होते हुए हम नहीं देख रहे हैं। इसलिए सामाजिक अन्याय को रोकने के लिए उपाय करने चाहिए। सामाजिक अन्याय को रोकने के लिए जो कानून बना हुआ है, वह कितना प्रभावी है, वह देखने वाली बात है। इसी प्रकार से आर्थिक अन्याय को रोकने का उपाय करना चाहिए। सबको समान रूप से अपने गुजारे लायक रोजगार से जितनी भी आय मिलती है, उसमें उसका गुजारा हो जाना चाहिए, लेकिन क्या वह होता है, यह भी देखा जाना चाहिए। लेकिन सामाजिक, आर्थिक तथा राजनैतिक न्याय नहीं हो रहा है। इसीलिए इन सारी बातों की प्रवृत्तियां बढ़ती जा रही हैं। मनुष्य को मानवोचित धर्म तथा व्यवहार करना चाहिए। हमारे यहां आदर्श कल्पना है: vÉßÉÊiÉ, FÉàÉÉ nàÉ +ɺiÉäªÉ, ¶ÉÉäSÉ ÉÊxÉOÉcÆ PÉÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉtÉÉ, ºÉiªÉ +ɵÉEÉävÉ n¶ÉBÉEÆ vÉàÉÇ ãÉFÉhÉÆ* àÉxÉÖ­ªÉ BÉEÉ ªÉcÉÒ ãÉFÉhÉ cè <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA àÉxÉÖ­ªÉiÉÉ BÉEä <xÉ ãÉFÉhÉÉå ºÉä ÉÊ´ÉcÉÒxÉ cÉäxÉÉ +É{É®ÉvÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉä® |É´ÉßkÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉxÉÖ­ªÉ BÉEÉä +É{ÉxÉä +ÉÉ{É BÉEÉä <xÉ ºÉÉ®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉÉå BÉEä +ÉxÉÖBÉÚEãÉ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA |ɪÉÉºÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*         VÉÉä +É{É®ÉvÉÉå BÉEÉÒ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ cè, =ºÉàÉå £ÉÉÒ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEä |ÉÉÊiÉ VÉÉä +É{É®ÉvÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè ªÉÉ VÉ¤É ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEä +ÉÉκiÉi´É BÉEÉä JÉiÉ®É {ÉcÖÆSÉÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA +É{É®ÉvÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè SÉÉcä =ºÉä £ÉÉ´ÉÉiàÉBÉE °ô{É ºÉä, ¶ÉÉ®ÉÒÉÊ®BÉE °ô{É ºÉä ªÉÉ =ºÉä ºÉÉàÉÉÉÊVÉBÉE °ô{É ºÉä |ÉiÉÉÉʽiÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉA, ªÉc £ÉÉÒ iÉÉä ABÉE +É{É®ÉvÉ cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA <ºÉ +É{É®ÉvÉ BÉEÉÒ BÉDªÉÉ ºÉVÉÉ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA? इसी प्रकार से समाज के प्रति किया गया जो अपराध होता है, उस अपराध की क्या सजा होनी चाहिए? इसी प्रकार से राष्ट्र के प्रति, राष्ट्र की अस्मिता को ठेस पहुंचाने की द्ृष्टि से जो अपराध किया गया है, उसमें हमारा द्ृष्टिकोण क्या रहता है, वह सब बातें हमें देखनी चाहिए। एक ही नियम से सारी बातों का परिपालन हो जाएगा, यह ठीक नहीं है। इसलिए व्यक्ति के प्रति जो अपराध किया जाता है, उस अपराध के पीछे क्या भाव है, अपराध करने का कारण क्या है, उन सारी बातों पर जाकर फिर उसके बारे में सुझाव तय करने का काम हो सकता है, वह होना चाहिए। इसी प्रकार से समाज के प्रति जो अपराध किया गया है, समाज की व्यवस्था को बिगाड़ने के लिए जो काम किया गया है तथा अपने हित को साधने के लिए समाज को नुकसान पहुंचाने का जो काम किया गया है, उस अपराध की क्या सजा तय होनी चाहिए, इस पर विचार किया जाना चाहिए. उसी प्रकार से राष्ट्र को क्षति पहुंचाने के लिए जो काम किये गये हैं, राष्ट्र द्रोह के संबंध में जो अपराध किया जाता है, उसके बारे में क्या सजा होनी चाहिए? यह भी देखा जाना चाहिए।

        +É¤É VÉÉä |ɺÉÆMÉ SÉãÉ ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ªÉc VÉÉä ºÉƺÉn {É® càÉãÉÉ cÉä MɪÉÉ, ªÉc ºÉƺÉn {É® càÉãÉÉ BÉE®xÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cè ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE ABÉE iÉ®c ºÉä ãÉÉäBÉE iÉÆjÉ BÉEÉÒ {ÉrÉÊiÉ ÉÊVɺÉä càÉxÉä º´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, ªÉc iÉÉä =ºÉ {É® càÉãÉÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè* =ºÉàÉå càÉÉ®É VÉÉä àÉÉèÉÊãÉBÉE n¶ÉÇxÉ iÉlÉÉ ÉʺÉrÉÆiÉ cè, VÉÉä càÉÉ®ÉÒ àÉÉxªÉiÉÉ cè, VÉÉä càÉÉ®ÉÒ ÉÊxÉ­~É cè, =ºÉ {É® ªÉc +ÉɵÉEàÉhÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè, =ºÉä FÉiÉ-ÉÊ´ÉFÉiÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ BÉEÉàÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè iÉÉä =ºÉ +É{É®ÉvÉ BÉEÉÒ BÉDªÉÉ ºÉVÉÉ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA, ªÉä BÉÖEU |ɶxÉ càÉÉ®ä ºÉÉàÉxÉä cé* <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA <xÉ ºÉÉ®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉÉå BÉEÉä näJÉiÉä cÖA càÉå =xÉBÉEä nÆb BÉEä |ÉàÉÉhÉ BÉEÉä iÉªÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA +ÉÉè® =ºÉàÉå ºÉ£ÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉÉå BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEÉä àÉßiªÉÖ-nÆb cÉäxÉÉ cÉÒ xÉcÉÓ SÉÉÉÊcA ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉ¤É ºÉàÉªÉ àÉå, ºÉ¤É BÉEÉãÉ àÉå ºÉcÉÒ xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉÉÒ cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉÉÊãÉA £ÉªÉ ÉʤÉxÉ cÉäA xÉ |ÉÉÒiÉ, AäºÉÉ BÉEcÉ MɪÉÉ cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA £ÉªÉ iÉÉä cÉäxÉÉ cÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* <ºÉÉÒ iÉ®c ºÉä àÉxÉÖ­ªÉ BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå àÉxÉÖ­ªÉiÉÉ BÉEÉ VÉÉä ÉÊ®¶iÉÉ cè, ABÉE-nںɮä BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå àÉxÉÖ­ªÉ +É¤É ¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉE +ɺÉÉÊc­hÉÖ cÉäiÉÉ SÉãÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè, +ɺÉÆ´ÉänxɶÉÉÒãÉ cÉäiÉÉ SÉãÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* AäºÉÉ ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE àÉxÉÖ­ªÉiÉÉ BÉEÉ £ÉÉ´É vÉÉÒ®ä-vÉÉÒ®ä ãÉÉä{É cÉä ®cÉ cè +ÉÉè® ºÉ¤É VÉMÉc AäºÉÉ ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE càÉ {ÉÉ­ÉÉhÉ cÉä MÉA cé* ´ÉèºÉä £ÉÉÒ VÉèºÉÉ BÉEcÉ MɪÉÉ cè: “पत्थरों से पत्थरों का रिश्ता कुछ होता नहीं है। पत्थर के दर्द पर पत्थर कोई रोता नहीं है, पत्थर ने कब दिखाया पत्थरों को रास्ता, पत्थर ने कर रखा है पत्थर से वास्ता।” फिर भी पत्थर इतना बेकार नहीं है क्योंकि “पत्थर से जुड़कर पत्थर हो जाता है पत्थर, यह आदमी ही है कि इंसानियत से डरता नहीं।” आदमी इंसानियत से पीछे हट जाता है।[r52]          <ºÉÉÊãɪÉä <xÉ ºÉÉ®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉÉå BÉEÉä näJÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä càÉå <xºÉÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉÆ´ÉänxÉÉ BÉEÉä =VÉÉMÉ® BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcªÉä, +É{É®ÉvÉÉÒ àÉå ºÉÖvÉÉ® BÉE®xÉÉ cÉäMÉÉ* càÉÉ®ä {ÉÉºÉ VÉäãÉ BÉEèºÉÉÒ cé, <ºÉ ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå ºÉ´ÉÉÈMÉÉÒhÉ °ô{É ºÉä ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ® BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcªÉä BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE <ºÉºÉä ABÉE {É®àÉ +ÉÉè® +ÉÉn¶ÉÇ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ àÉå {ÉcÖÆSÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* àÉxÉÖ­ªÉ BÉEÉä ÉÊ´É®ãÉÉ VÉxàÉ ÉÊàÉãÉÉ cÖ+ÉÉ cè* àÉxÉÖ­ªÉà |ÉBÉßEÉÊiÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉ´ÉÇgÉä­~ BÉßEÉÊiÉ cè, =ºÉä FÉÉÊiÉ {ÉcÖÆSÉÉxÉä BÉEÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEÉä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ® xÉcÉÓ cè * +ÉMÉ® ªÉc FÉÉÊiÉ {ÉcÖÆSÉÉÒ cè iÉÉä =ºÉ ºÉ£ªÉ ºÉàÉÉVÉ BÉEä xÉÉiÉä =ºÉBÉEÉ VÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉä ®JÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcªÉä* ªÉÉÊn +ÉÉn¶ÉÇ BÉEã{ÉxÉÉ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉÉ +ÉÉn¶ÉÇ BÉEÉÒ {ÉÉÊ®ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ cè iÉÉä ºÉÉàÉÉÉÊVÉBÉE, +ÉÉÉÌlÉBÉE +ÉÉè® ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE {ÉÉÊ®ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ àÉå ¤ÉnãÉÉ´É ÉÊBÉEªÉä ÉʤÉxÉÉ =ºÉä +ÉÉn¶ÉÇ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ àÉå xÉcÉÓ {ÉcÖÆSÉɪÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* <ºÉÉÊãɪÉä àÉä®ÉÒ àÉÉxªÉÃiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE  ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉ +É{É®ÉvÉ SÉÉcä ´Éc nä¶É BÉEä |ÉÉÊiÉ cÉä, ®É­]Å BÉEä |ÉÉÊiÉ cÉä, ºÉàÉÉVÉ  BÉEä |ÉÉÊiÉ cÉä, ªÉÉ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEä |ÉÉÊiÉ cÉä, =ºÉBÉEÉ VÉÉä £ÉÉ´É cè ªÉÉ nÖ®É´É cè, =ºÉä näJÉiÉä cÖªÉä VÉÉä ºÉàÉÉVÉ BÉEÉ {ÉEèºÉãÉÉ cÉä, =ºÉä àÉÉxÉxÉÉ ~ÉÒBÉE cÉäMÉÉ* <xÉ ºÉÉ®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉÉå BÉEÉä ABÉE àÉiÉ ºÉä, ABÉE ¤ÉÉ® àÉå +ÉÉè® ABÉE iÉ®ÉÒBÉEä ºÉä  =ºÉBÉEÉ xªÉÉªÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉxÉÉ xªÉɪÉÉäÉÊSÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉ*         श्रीमती रंजीत रंजन (सहरसा) :सभापति महोदया, मैं दो-तीन बातें रखना चाहूंगी। अभी माननीय सदस्य फांसी के भय की बात कर रहे थे। सब से पहले इसे परिभाषित किया जाना चाहिये कि फांसी क्यों होनी चाहिये। आज एक तरफ जिस तरह से समाज में असमानता फैल रही है, उससे कितने लोगों में फांसी का भय रह गया है? आज तक हमारे देश में जिन लोगों को फांसी दी गई है, उससे एक ही प्रश्न पैदा होता है कि क्या फांसी देने से गुनाह खत्म हो गये हैं। आज तक सरकार क्या सोच पायी है कि फांसी होनी चाहिये या नहीं, क्या इस सोच से आगे बढ़े हैं? हमारे एक बुजुर्ग सदस्य कह रहे थे कि जो इस तरह का अप®ÉvÉ BÉE®iÉä cé, =xcå {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcªÉä*  àÉä®É ªÉcÉÒ ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ cè ÉÊBÉE <ºÉä ÉÊBÉEºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä {ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉÉÊ­ÉiÉ BÉE®åMÉä ÉÊBÉE =ºÉä ÉÊBÉEºÉ iÉ®c BÉEä +É{É®ÉvÉ BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcªÉä*  àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ºÉnºªÉ xÉä +É{ÉEWÉãÉ BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ ÉÊãɪÉÉ* BÉDªÉÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ BÉEÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ näxÉä ºÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn JÉiàÉ cÉä ®cÉ cè? जो व्यक्ति अपने सिर पर कफन बांधकर हयुमन बम लगाकर अपराध कर रहा है, उसको फांसी देने से क्या उसकी बुराई खत्म हो जायेगी? ´Éc +É{ÉxÉä àÉWÉc¤É àÉå +É{ÉxÉä BÉEiÉÇBªÉ BÉEÉä {ÉÚ®É BÉE®BÉEä ¶ÉcÉÒn BÉEcãÉɪÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* =ºÉä ABÉE +É{ÉxÉä °ô{É àÉå ¶ÉcÉÒn BÉE®É® ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* 1984 BÉEä nÆMÉÉå àÉå ºÉiÉ´ÉÆiÉ É˺Éc +ÉÉè® ¤Éä+ÉÆiÉ É˺Éc BÉEÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ cÖ<Ç* ABÉE iÉ®{ÉE ãÉÉäMÉÉå xÉä =ºÉä MÉÖxÉÉc BÉEcÉ iÉÉä nںɮÉÒ iÉ®{ÉE <ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ àÉå =ºÉBÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ +ÉÉ MɪÉÉ*         ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉä®É |ɶxÉ cè ÉÊBÉE  ABÉE iÉ®{ÉE càÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ BÉEÉä {ÉBÉE½iÉä cé  +ÉÉè® =ºÉä VÉäãÉ àÉå bÉãÉ näiÉä cé ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ BÉEÉä<Ç AäºÉÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉ cÉäxÉä {É® ªÉÃc ÉÊbàÉÉÆb cÉäiÉÉÒ cè ÉÊBÉE =ºÉä ãÉä VÉÉBÉE® càÉ +ÉxªÉ +É{É®ÉÉÊvɪÉÉå BÉEÉä ºÉÉé{É näiÉä cé* càÉ ªÉc BÉDªÉÉå xÉcÉÓ ºÉÉäSÉiÉä ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉ=Æ]® BÉEɪÉÇ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè* ÉÊ{ÉE® £ÉÉÒ ªÉc |ɶxÉ =~iÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ ´Éc {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEä ãÉɪÉBÉE cè ªÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* <ºÉ ºÉƤÉÆvÉ àÉå SÉÉcä ºÉkÉÉ {ÉFÉ BÉEÉä ãÉå ªÉÉ nںɮä FÉäjÉ BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä ãÉå, ´Éä àÉÉjÉ ºÉkÉÉ BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä, +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ºÉÉÒ] BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä àÉVÉc¤É BÉEÉ JÉäãÉ JÉäãÉiÉä cé +ÉÉè® BÉÖEU ãÉÉäMÉ BÉE]Â]®iÉÉ BÉEÉ JÉäãÉ JÉäãÉiÉä cé* ´Éä ãÉÉäMÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä àÉÉ®iÉä cé, =xÉBÉEÉ JÉÚxÉ BÉE®iÉä cé, BÉDªÉÉ AäºÉä ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ cÉäMÉÉÒ VÉÉä <ºÉ iÉ®c BÉEÉ BÉE]Â]®iÉÉ BÉEÉ JÉäãÉ àÉVÉc¤É BÉEä +ÉÉvÉÉ® {É® JÉäãÉiÉä cé? अभी कुछ महीने पहले एक संतोष नाम के आदमी को मीडिया द्वारा दिखाया गया कि किस तरह उसने सात लोगों की हत्या की, मीडिया ने उसे दिखा तो दिया लेकिन उसने बाद में आत्महत्या कर ली…(व्यवधान) 

सभापति महोदया : आप संक्षेप में अपनी बात रखें कि मृत्युदंड का प्रावधान होना चाहिये या नहीं क्योंकि अभी बहुत से सदस्य बोलने वाले हैं।

श्रीमती रंजीत रंजन :  ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉÉ, =ºÉ BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ xÉä iÉÉÒxÉ àÉcÉÒxÉä ¤ÉÉn +ÉÉiàÉciªÉÉ BÉE® ãÉÉÒ* =सके पहले उसने पांच चटि्ठयां लिखी जिसमें उसने लिखा कि वह बेगुनाह है।[s53]  BÉEãÉ ªÉÉÊn ÉÊxÉ­{ÉFÉ VÉÉÆSÉ cÉä +ÉÉè® ´Éc ãɽBÉEÉ ¤ÉäMÉÖxÉÉc ºÉÉÉʤÉiÉ cÉä VÉÉiÉÉ cè iÉÉä BÉDªÉÉ =xÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ºÉWÉÉ cÉäMÉÉÒ ÉÊVɺÉàÉå ´Éä ¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ cé, SÉÉcä ´Éc àÉÉÒÉÊbªÉÉ cÉä ªÉÉ VÉÉÆSÉ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ cÉä, SÉÉcä ÉÊiÉcɽ cÉä* ªÉÉÊn +ÉÉ{É {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ÉÊb{ÉEÉ< xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉä iÉÉä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEiÉ® näJÉxÉä àÉå +ÉɪÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE =xÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä BÉE£ÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ ºÉWÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉä {ÉÉiÉÉÒ ÉÊVÉxcÉåxÉä MÉÉävÉ®É BÉEÉÆb ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ ªÉÉ ÉÊcxnÚ-àÉÖºÉãÉàÉÉxÉ nÆMÉä BÉE®ÉxÉä BÉEÉ BÉEÉàÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cÉä* +ÉBÉDºÉ® ´ÉcÉÒ cÉäiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ªÉÉ iÉÉä ´Éc ÉÊxÉnÉæ­É cÉäBÉE® UÚ] VÉÉiÉä cé ªÉÉ =xÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ ÉÊàÉãÉiÉÉÒ cè ÉÊVÉxÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® àÉÉèiÉ BÉEÉ BÉEÉä<Ç àÉiÉãÉ¤É xÉcÉÓ ®c VÉÉiÉÉ* àÉé ABÉE ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcBÉE® +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ JÉiàÉ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ* BÉEãÉ cÉÒ àÉé ]ÉÒ´ÉÉÒ {É® näJÉ ®cÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉ ãÉÉäMÉ <ºÉ ºiÉ® {É® {ÉcÖÆSÉ MÉA cé ÉÊBÉE ãÉÉäMÉ +É{ÉxÉÉÒ àÉÉèiÉ BÉEÉ ãÉÉ<´É ]èãÉÉÒBÉEɺ] näJÉiÉä cé* AäºÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉDªÉÉ +É{ÉxÉÉÒ {ÉEÉƺÉÉÒ ºÉä b®åMÉä? àÉé ABÉE ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcBÉE® +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉÒ*         +ÉÉVÉ VÉÉä ºÉÉàÉÉÉÊVÉBÉE +ɺÉàÉÉxÉiÉÉ cè, =ºÉàÉå +ÉàÉÉÒ® +ÉàÉÉÒ® cÉäiÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè +ÉÉè® MÉ®ÉÒ¤É MÉ®ÉÒ¤É cÉäiÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* +ÉàÉÉÒ® {ÉèºÉä ºÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ JÉ®ÉÒn ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ MÉ®ÉÒ¤É BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ 20-25 ºÉÉãÉÉå ºÉä VÉäãÉ àÉå cè, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ BÉEÉä<Ç =ºÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉÖxÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* +ÉÉVÉ VÉÉä àÉÉcÉèãÉ cè, +ÉÉVÉ VÉÉä àÉÉcÉèãÉ ÉʵÉEªÉä] ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè, ÉÊnxÉ {É® ÉÊnxÉ àÉÉÒÉÊbªÉÉ BÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä VÉÉä +ɶãÉÉÒãÉiÉÉ BÉEÉ àÉÉcÉèãÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè, <ºÉBÉEÉä ¤ÉnãÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ VÉ°ô®iÉ cè* ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä ºÉÖvÉÉ®xÉä BÉEÉÒ VÉ°ô®iÉ cè* àÉé ºÉàÉZÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ªÉÉÊn +ÉÉ{É ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ºÉgÉàÉ BÉEɮɴÉÉºÉ nä ®cä cé iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEÉä {ɶSÉÉiÉÉ{É BÉEÉ àÉÉèBÉEÉ nä ®cä cé* =ºÉBÉEÉä ºÉÉäSÉxÉä BÉEÉ àÉÉèBÉEÉ nä ®cä cé ÉÊBÉE =ºÉxÉä MÉãÉiÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè ªÉÉ xÉcÉÓ* ªÉÉÊn ´Éc ºÉÉäSÉ xÉcÉÓ {ÉÉAMÉÉ iÉÉä ´Éc BÉE¤É ºÉàÉZÉ {ÉÉAMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE =ºÉxÉä MÉãÉiÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé <ºÉ àÉßiªÉÖ-nÆb BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE cÚÆ +ÉÉè® <ºÉBÉEÉä c]ÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* <iÉxÉÉ BÉEcBÉE® àÉé +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ BÉE®iÉÉÒ cÚÆ*     

-----------------

   

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Before I call the next speaker, I call Shri Handique to present the Thirtieth Report of the Business Advisory Committee.

         

PROF. M. RAMADASS (PONDICHERRY): Thank you Madam Chairperson for the opportunity afforded to speak on this very important issue.  Now, the Bill introduced by the hon. Member, Shri Chandrappan calling for the abolition of capital punishment is one of the most controversial one.  There are divergent views not only in this Parliament as we have just now witnessed but also elsewhere in the world and elsewhere in the country we have differences  of opinion on this very important question.  There can be arguments for it and there can be arguments against it.  Many studies also reveal no conclusive evidence of various issues which arose on the question of abolition of capital punishment.

            Now, when we discuss this issue we should discuss it from a philosophical angle and not from the angle of individual specific cases.  We cannot cite a few cases and say that the crimes committed by these people have been heinous, so serious and, therefore, they should be hanged but we should take a conceptual view of how to handle this problem raised by Shri Chandrappan.

            Now, philosophically Madam, I should say that capital punishment goes against the very spirit of the right to life because as many Members have insisted and endorsed, right to life is an inalienable right to a person, and whether the State has the right to take away the right of an individual is a very moot question.  Of course, in the rarest of the rare cases you can do it but then you will have to find out whether there are alternative ways of satisfying that in the rarest of the rare cases and allow his life to continue because all efforts of the Government, of the State, are only to nourish the life and provide a dignified life to an individual.  If you take away the life in the form of capital punishment, then we would be violating the principle of the right to life.  That is why, since 1977, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a Resolution every year calling on countries that has not abolished death penalty to establish a moratorium on execution.[R54]              The  latest Resolution adopted in April, 2005 was co-sponsored by 81 Member-countries.

            So, today at the global level, there is a majoriterian  opinion that the capital punishment  should be abolished, and it is for this reason only.  And the Human Rights activists everywhere have proved that the abolition of the capital punishment has served the purpose of human kind.

            Even the Constitution of India says about the protection of life and personal liberty.    Therefore, keeping that philosophical view in mind, we should thank that the abolition of capital punishment may be the right step.

            The second reason people cite in favour of the capital punishment is that the capital punishment can act as a deterrent; it will instill fear; it will instill a kind of morality  on the part of the people who are left behind, and  that they will not commit this kind of heinous crime.  But then, statistics do not show, empirical evidences do not show any positive correlation between these two aspects.  In India, there are not many executions.  In the last few years, we have seen a maximum of 55 executions.  But keeping this capital punishment, have we been able to reduce the number of crimes? The crime rate has not come down.  The crimes and crime rate are related to more exogenous factors  rather than the capital punishment.  The capital punishment does not seem to deter the people in committing the mistake.  Therefore, saying that the capital punishment will deter the people is not a sound proposition as it stands today. Therefore, we will have to see whether it can be remedied through other means.

            Now, my esteemed friend Mr. Kharventhan   mentioned about the judicial vagaries.  Supposing, you take a case and the criminal judicial system does not enquire into the case; and   if an innocent person is punished and he is offered or imposed a capital punishment, it becomes irrevocable.  You cannot give a life to a man, who has been sentenced to death after you find that he is not guilty.  And, the Indian courts are not  wanting in evidences  where we find  innocent people are punished.  There are several courts in  several judgments reversing the judgment passed on the evidences, based on other facts.  Therefore, giving a capital punishment leaves the man without any solution or a remedy.  So, from that angle also we will have to see that it becomes irrevocable.  We  have to provide other alternatives.

            I would feel, Madam, that instead of capital punishment, you extend the punishment up to his life and see that there is no parole to him, there is no other remission to him.  If you find that he is a hardened criminal , it is only there it pricks my conscience whether we should abolish it or not.  In these days of heinous crimes, in these days of terrorist attacks and all that, whether these people should go scot-free  in the name of  Human Rights, whether  these people have human rights or not, is a moot question. But even if the Government thinks or if the people of the country want, then we should have an alternative mechanism by which these terrorists have to be tackled. 

            Therefore, we will have to see that these people should also be dealt with according to the law.  So, on balance of consideration, I feel  and I tend to agree with what Mr. Chandrappan  says that it should be abolished, but I would add that it should be  abolished in practice but kept in principle.’ Let this system of capital punishment remain in principle.  But abolish it in practice, so that the rule of law, the right to live and the innocent people are protected from the judicial vagaries.

MADAM CHAIRMAN :  Thank you very much, Prof. Ramadass.

            Now, since Mr. Raghraj and Mr. Girdhari Lal Bhargava are not present,  I call the next speaker – Shri Brahmananda Panda.

SHRI BRAHMANANDA PANDA (JAGATSINGHPUR):  Madam Chairman, I extend my hearty thanks for giving me this opportunity to participate in the discussion on this very important Bill, which has been moved by Mr. Chandrappan.

            Before discussing on this aspect, let me highlight before this august House that as a trial court lawyer, I have conducted cases from the Steel City   Rourkela including the backward districts of KBK, and I find that in most of the cases, due to lack of legal evidence, aggrieved  persons are acquitted.  My last case before elevating to this House was the case of Dara Singh  where a death sentence was awarded by the trial court, and subsequently the sentence was reduced to life imprisonment by the Hon’ble High Court while others were acquitted.

             In this regard, when it is said that the crime is heinous, horrifying, it has its own impact on the society and it comes within the purview of rarest of the rare case, in such cases only death sentence can be awarded.

            Now-a-days in the civilized society of ours, the social activists are deprecating the imposition of death penalty. The crime is mounting up, as we feel ourselves unsafe in train, aircraft and bus and  an alarming situation is prevailing in our country. In these circumstances,  it is to be seen whether the abolition of capital punishment is justified  or not. In this regard, my humble view before this House is that death penalty remains in statute and it is granted in rarest of the rare case like in the case of assassination of Late Shrimati Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and in the Parliament attack case. In this regard, Justice  Lahoti, who retired as Chief Justice of India, had expressed in a statement that before awarding death penalty, the facts of the cases are to be examined carefully. In such circumstances, he had referred to the blast and asked what other punishment should be inflicted on those who terrorize the country by taking the lives of innocent citizens. They should not be dealt with any leniency.

            Countering the opponents of capital punishment, Justice Lahoti said, “people say or the social activists say that in death penalty, you cannot give the life back. Ask this man, who is the mastermind of the blast, whether he can give the life back to those people who were killed. Can he give the life back to those people who were killed? We forget demands of those killed and think only of one person.”             Taking into account such circumstances, in the recent decision, the Delhi High Court has severely deprecated the view that circumstances should be taken into account. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its earlier guidelines on imposition of death sentence, only in the rarest of the rare case, asked the trial court and also the High Courts to take into account the aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances while awarding punishment.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : The time allotted for this Bill is over. We will have one more Hon’ble Member to speak, and thereafter the Minister will reply. So, if the House agrees, let us extend the time for half-an-hour more for this Bill.

SEVERAL HON’BLE  MEMBERS: Yes.

SHRI BRAHMANANDA PANDA : The Delhi High Court said that the blast guilty must have no mercy. The Hon’ble Division Bench in strong words observed, “satisfying the conscience of society, as the accused was a menace to the society, did not deserve to exist in this earth.” That is the view of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and different High Courts.

I would like to highlight that  our Constitution provides for upholding the right to life and personal liberty under articles 72, 74, 21, 161, 162, etc. When in a case, the evidence is cogent, reliable and unimpeachable and the accused is set free, it affects the interests of the society.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Please conclude now.[MSOffice55]  SHRI BRAHMANANDA PANDA : Madam, I am concluding with this remark that in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court my view is this. Keeping in view the crime situation which is now mounting up in the country, for the present the penalty of death sentence should not be abolished. A time will come when we will consider the circumstances. A good sense will prevail upon the criminals. 

            Madam, as you know, the criminals are being hired and innocent persons are being killed. They have absolutely nothing to do with anybody. In such circumstances, this is the high time and I appeal that this should not be happening for the time being. There are other constitutional provisions that in exceptional cases the President of India and the Governor are also empowered under the law to pardon or to remit the sentence.

            With these words, I conclude my speech. I hope and appeal that Shri Chandrappan’s dream will be materialized in future; but it may be kept in abeyance for the time being.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN  : Thank you. Now the last speaker of this debate Shri Francis Fanthome to speak now.

SHRI FRANCIS FANTHOME (NOMINATED): Madam Chairperson, I rise to support the view that capital punishment is an aberration and all democracies should abolish capital punishment. I am surprised that there are people who promote the thought that five thousand years of civilisational history that is behind this nation should not have grown sufficiently and should take the barbaric position that capital punishment is a requirement for civil society.

            I draw strength from the thoughts of Hinduism that promotes Ahimsa, Buddhism that abhors all violence, Judaism and Christianity that had abolished the provision of capital punishment or death penalty as a system in religious order. Even Islam does not provide for any form of death unless it is for infidels where again a very specific provision has been made.

            Madam, it is my belief that victims of heinous crimes are martyrs to a cause. And it is for the people who sit on subsequent matters to ensure that society does not diminish but is enhanced consequent to their sacrifice. Should the brutal death of Mahatma Gandhi, Shrimati Indira Gandhi or our beloved Rajiv Gandhi and many others be trivialized and be observed in the same vein as that of the assassin? If society is to benefit, we need to keep in mind Gandhiji’s rejoinder to the Code of Hammurabi ‘Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ would surely one day lead to a blind world.

            In the face of adversity and brutality, civil society needs to exhibit magnanimity and rise above pedestrian thoughts and set in motion a process that will enrich and elevate the social order.

            Several observations can be cited to make this point evident. There is one thought that capital punishment is the most premeditative of murders which no criminal, no matter how calculate, can be compared. There is another thought. A civilized society must be based on values and principles that are higher than that it condemns. [MSOffice56]                The another thought is that a society that promotes the concern for life cannot make a case for ending life. Therefore, inherently, it is contradictory.

            With these words, Madam Chairperson, I must thank you for giving me this time. I would like to say that the Bill moved by Shri Chandrappan has our support and we would like to see the end of death penalty in this country.

                                                                                                                                   

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Thank you, Shri Francis Fanthome. Now, the hon. Minister will speak.

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL): Hon. Chairperson, I would like to say at the beginning itself that the issue which we are discussing today in the House is of very great importance to all of us. The hon. Mover presented his argument in a very cogent and convincing manner. All other Members, who made their submissions on this issue, also made very balanced statements. There were views expressed in different manner, some opposing the Bill and some supporting the Bill. Yet, it must be said that they argued their points in a very correct and convincing manner. Yet, the issue is very complicated and it may not be possible for us to come to any conclusion, this way or that way, at least in our country on the basis of what has happened in other countries or what has not happened in other countries. The decisions we want to take on this point have to depend on the situations prevailing in our country and many other things which are relevant to the point.

            I would like to say that the impression sometimes people get is that the death punishment is awarded under the Indian Penal Code and under section 302 alone, which is not correct. Let us understand under what laws and under what provisions, the death sentence can be awarded. Under the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of death is an alternative to imprisonment for life for offences under section 121, that is, waging war etc. against the Government of India; section 132, that is, abetment of mutiny by a member of the Armed Forces, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof; section 194, that is, false evidence leading to conviction of innocent person for a capital offence and his execution; section 302, that is, murder; section 305, that is, abetment of suicide of child or insane person; section 307, that is, attempt to murder by a life-convict; section 364A, that is, kidnapping for ransom etc; and section 396, that is, dacoity and murder.[s57]      Death sentence may also be imposed for murder committed by members of the Armed Forces under the Army, Air Force and the Navy Acts. Death penalty can also be imposed under special laws like section 4 of the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act; section 31 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985, etc. However, special laws like the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 specially mentions that a delinquent juvenile boy of below 16 years of age or a girl of below 18 years of age cannot be sentenced to death.

What have we said in the Constitution of India? In article 72 and article 304 of the Constitution of India, a stipulation has been made that under what circumstances remedy would lie against the sentence of death penalty. Hence, existence of death penalty has been provided or at least specially recognized by the Constitution of India. Article 161 of the Constitution also empowers the Governor of the State to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to the State. Therefore, first of all, we have to understand the circumstances under which death sentence can be awarded. If we understand in what kind of cases this punishment can be awarded, then we will be able to come to the correct conclusions whether it should remain in the statute or it should go out of the statute. Prof. Ramadass said that it should be retained in principle, and it should be abolished in practice. He has made a very pertinent point. There is nothing wrong in retaining these provisions in the law. But when you use these provisions against any person, then you use it in a very very careful manner, and in such a manner that no injustice is done.

However, there are cases in which at times one will be required to take certain steps against certain persons who are not likely to behave differently if leniency is shown to them or when you are proceeding against the persons who are committing some crimes against the entire nation as such; entire humanity as such; against the small children; against women; etc. and that too because they want to get something for themselves. In such cases, we shall have to take a different view. This is the first statement that I want to make with respect to this issue.

Madam, this has something to do with human psychology also. We know the history of punishment, which was awarded in the past. In India, they used to kill people by throwing them from the great heights of the hillocks into the valley or by crushing them under the feet of the elephants. In some other countries they were burnt openly in the villages, that is, in front of all the people. Some people were allowed to have tooth for tooth or eye for eye. This kind of punishment was accepted in the past, but we have given up that theory and come to this today.[r58]                      One of the Hindi poets has said: “न मैं भगवान हूं, न मैं शैतान हूं, मैं तो इंसान हूं।” We are all human beings. We are neither Gods, nor Satans/devils. There are grey areas in our behaviour, in our psychology, and in our attitude towards life. We shall have to take care of that grey area. That is exactly why, if the authority is retained by the society which is represented by the Government of the day, and if that authority is very sparingly used, very carefully used, probably, there is not anything wrong.

            While speaking on this issue, the Members referred to so many countries/ States and what is happening there. Nearly 120 countries have abolished the death punishment. There are about 67 or 78 countries which have retained this punishment. But even those 67 or 78 countries which have retained the punishment, they have not actually hanged or punished any person and taken his life. They have retained the provision and, yet, they have not used that provision. This is also to be remembered.

            What has happened in our country, let us understand it first. I am not going to give the statistics of all the past years, but I am giving you the statistics of the last five years. How many persons were sentenced to death during 2000 and 2004? In 2000, 87 persons were sentenced to death; in 2001, 106 persons were sentenced to death; in 2002, 126 persons were sentenced to death; in 2003, 142 persons were sentenced to death; and in 2004, 66 persons were sentenced to death.

SHRI B. MAHTAB : Does it relate to different High Courts?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: When punishment is awarded by the High Courts, these cases generally go to the Supreme Court, and ultimately it becomes a decision given by the Supreme Court. Only in very, very rare cases, the matter is not taken up to the Supreme Court.

            Now, let us come to the sentences commuted to life imprisonment during the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Prof. Rasa Singh Rawat may please pay attention to these statistics. In 2001, 303 sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. They were all accumulated cases and that is why the numbers are different. In 2002, 301 cases were commuted; in 2003, 142 cases were commuted to life; and in 2004, 50 cases were commuted to life.

            Some hon. friends here and outside also have been raising this issue and then trying to give an impression that somebody is not trying to deal with this matter in a correct and legal manner.

 I come to the statistics of persons executed.  In 2000, not a single person was executed; in 2001, not a single person was hanged; in 2002, not a single person was hanged; in 2003, not a single person was hanged; and in 2004, only Dhananjoy was hanged. These are the relevant figures.

            You have been saying that the present Government is trying to avoid its responsibility. We will not avoid our responsibility; we will conduct ourselves in a correct manner.[r59] But, let me, without trying to hurt anybody, just bring to the notice of the entire House that Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination case was pending with the Government from 2000 to 2005, and it was not sent to the President for five  years. Rajiv Gandhi was the former Prime Minister of India and could have been the future Prime Minister of India at that time. For these many years the matter was pending with the Government, not with the President. We have not said these things because we do not want to play politics with this. You also please do not play politics.

            Having said this, I would like to submit that we have been very careful in hanging any person, or executing any person. For the last five years, only one person is executed. The principle which you have given very rightly is the principle which is followed by the Government and we will follow that principle. You are very right when you say that we should retain this punishment in the statute but should not use it without applying our mind carefully to the facts of the case, the situation prevailing, and many other factors which should be taken into account while considering the matter.

            So, my submission is that we have been very careful and we would like to be very careful. The situation is evolving in the country. Even though there are many provisions in many laws under which death punishment can be awarded, yet in so many years of time we have not actually used that provision to take anybody’s life. Let this situation continue for some time. We will be very careful. We will not tilt to this side or that side. We will do our duty in a correct manner. The only thing which we have to guard against is the politics done in such cases. If we avoid that, probably the courts will be correct, the Government will be correct, everybody who is responsible will be correct, and everybody will be correct.

            With this, I would like to request the hon. Member to please not to  press for consideration of this Bill and withdraw this Bill. When the time comes, we will take appropriate decision. We respect what you have said. That is the approach we should have towards life. That is exactly the approach all of us on this side, and probably on that side also, have towards life, towards punishment, towards the criminal justice system in our country, the judges, the people in the Government and others.

           

SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN (CHIRAYINKIL): Is a mercy petition pending in Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination case?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Yes. That was retained with the Government for five years. Now it has gone where it should have gone.

In Rajiv Gandhi’s case I would like to say, this is a very important point, when one of the accused who is a lady gave birth to a child, Shrimati Sonia Gandhi said, “Let her death sentence be commuted to life sentence’, and her sentence is commuted.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Time allotted is over. Shri Chandrappan, do you wish to withdraw the Bill?

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : Madam, I am very glad that eleven Members took part in the discussion and the hon. Minister replied to it. Though the Minister has not accepted the Bill as such, I think he also agrees with the sentiments expressed by most of the Members of the House. I hope the day will not be far when we may come to a decision to join the majority of the countries in the world. I do not want to divide the House on this issue. So, let us try to evolve a consensus as soon as possible. I seek the permission of the House to withdraw the Bill.

            I beg to move for leave to withdraw the Bill to provide for abolition of capital punishment in India.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The question is:

“That leave be granted to withdraw the Bill to provide for abolition of capital punishment in India.”   The motion was adopted.

SHRI C.K. CHANDRAPPAN : Sir, I withdraw the Bill.

- - -------