raises a question in regard to the constitutional validity of death penalty for murder provided in Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentencing procedure embodied ... abolition of the 'death penalty'.
12. Dr. L. M. Singhvi submitted that the question of death penalty cannot be foreclosed for ever
raises a question in regard to the constitutional validity of death penalty for murder provided in Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentencing procedure embodied ... abolition of the 'death penalty'.
9. Dr. L.M. Singhvi submitted that the question of death penalty cannot be foreclosed for ever
death
penalty has been deterrent. In other words, the efficacy of
the death penalty as a deterrent is unproven. [365A]
6. The death penalty, rather ... death penalty has been
deterrent. In other words, the efficacy of the death penalty
as a deterrent is unproven.
"The death penalty, rather than
specifically restrict the area of death penalty,
if death penalty is still a recognised legal sanction for
murder or some types of murder in most ... prohibit the imposition of death penalty in all
circumstances. All that they require is that, firstly, death
penalty shall not be arbitrarily inflicted; secondly
specifically restrict the area of death penalty, if death
penalty is still a recognised legal sanction for murder or some types
of murder in most ... power centre to inflict death
penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability
or otherwise of retaining death penalty. The community may entertain
such
process of
inflicting the penalty of death. ... This
conclusion rests squarely on the predicate
that the penalty of death is qualitatively
different from a sentence ... death penalty is retained,
there may well be murders by shooting which
justify the ultimate penalty. But there
will also be murders of quite
Supreme Court expressed the view that for certain types of murders,
death penalty alone can be considered adequate deterrent inasmuch
as the Court observed thus ... already indicated above, reflected the necessity of retention of
death penalty in some cases of murder for its deterrent effects and
disfavoured abolition of death
Sunil @ Balikaran Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 August, 2016
Cr.Ref.No.2
Sri Mithu Kalita Alias Mitu Kalita vs State Of Assam on 16 February, 2006
Equivalent
learned author proceeds to say:
"The provisions of the Murder (Abolition of Death
Penalty) Act 1965 provides a simple illustration.
Taken in isolation, they ... specifically restrict the
area of death penalty, if death penalty is still a
recognised legal sanction for murder or some types
of murder in most
