Experts who appeared before a parliamentary committee examining the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill have advocated for the abolition of the death penalty. They cited a global trend of countries abolishing the death penalty, research suggesting it is not a deterrent, and Supreme Court judgments distancing from the sentence. The parliamentary panel, however, left the matter for the government to consider. The experts also highlighted the need to clarify the roles of lower courts and high courts in cases with evidence but poorly planned defenses.
Image/ Agencies
NEW DELHI: Domain experts who appeared before the parliamentary committee examining the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill (BNS) have made a strong pitch for abolition of death penalty , citing global trend, research discounting its deterrent effect and a number of Supreme Court judgements distancing from death sentence. However, the parliamentary panel in its draft report is said to have left the matter for the government to consider.
The panel acknowledged overwhelming sentiment against death penalty, explained by the fact that the judicial system can be prone to errors and by experts' keenness to prevent an innocent person from being wrongly sentenced to death.
As many as 19 domain experts, including senior advocates of the Supreme Court and high courts, vice-chancellors and professors of law universities, retired judges, Law Commission of India chairman, retired DGPs, former law officers of the government and head of Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD), were invited by the standing committee on home affairs to present their views on the BNS. During the nine meetings of the panel to hear the stakeholders and experts, it was pointed out that BNS had raised the number of crimes attracting death penalty to 15 from 11.
Number of trial courts awarding death sentences were also on the rise. Domain experts drew attention to how more and more countries have been abolishing death penalty. They claimed that research by social scientists had found that death penalty has no deterrent effect against heinous crimes.
The experts referred to judgements of SC distancing from death penalty. In 2023, SC has either set aside all death penalties awarded by lower courts or commuted them to life imprisonment, after finding them failing the "rarest of rare" test.
The role of sessions court and high courts in cases where evidence is there but the defence not well-planned, must also be clarified, it was suggested. The provisions for mistrial on account of media trial must also be considered.
Hang my son, I’d have shot him: Ujjain rape accused's father calls for capital punishment
The panel acknowledged overwhelming sentiment against death penalty, explained by the fact that the judicial system can be prone to errors and by experts' keenness to prevent an innocent person from being wrongly sentenced to death.
As many as 19 domain experts, including senior advocates of the Supreme Court and high courts, vice-chancellors and professors of law universities, retired judges, Law Commission of India chairman, retired DGPs, former law officers of the government and head of Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD), were invited by the standing committee on home affairs to present their views on the BNS. During the nine meetings of the panel to hear the stakeholders and experts, it was pointed out that BNS had raised the number of crimes attracting death penalty to 15 from 11.
Number of trial courts awarding death sentences were also on the rise. Domain experts drew attention to how more and more countries have been abolishing death penalty. They claimed that research by social scientists had found that death penalty has no deterrent effect against heinous crimes.
The experts referred to judgements of SC distancing from death penalty. In 2023, SC has either set aside all death penalties awarded by lower courts or commuted them to life imprisonment, after finding them failing the "rarest of rare" test.
The role of sessions court and high courts in cases where evidence is there but the defence not well-planned, must also be clarified, it was suggested. The provisions for mistrial on account of media trial must also be considered.
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
