S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) - Havin failed in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, petitioner has filed this application to quash the direction issued by the learned Magistrate for having committed offences under sections 426, 447 and 506, I. P. C. ( 2 ) OPPOSITE party lodged information before the Officer-in-charge, Bhadrak town Police Station on 7. 4. 1986 against one Sravan Kumar and the petitioner. Charge sheet was filed against Sravan Kumar alone and cognizance was taken on 8. 7. 1986. After framing of the charges, informant filed an application in the court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate to issue process against the petitioner also. The same was allowed. Against the order, petitioner filed revision and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak dismissed the same. Hence, this application ( 3 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the investigating agency has been satisfied that there is no case against the petitioner. Learned Magistrate ought not to have issued process against the petitioner, who is a widow and she is likely to be harassed by facing the trial and, accordingly, the proceeding ought to be quashed. ( 4 ) IT is now settled in the decision reported in Hareram Satpatlzy v. Tikaram Agarwal and others1 that after taking cognizance and issuing process against some accused persons, Court can issue process against others not named in the police papers. In the present case in the first information report allegations were made against the petitioner. Perusing the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, learned Magistrate was satisfied that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner for which he directed issue of process. Inherent power of this Court is not meant to launch a proceeding to sit in appeal over the decision of the learned Magistrate. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be harassed by attending Court everyday to face the trial. Prosecution against a person is not a harassment to any person. However, appearance on each day may amount to harassment in a particular case. In the present case, taking into consideration that the petitioner is a widow, I direct that personal attendance of the petitioner may be dispensed with on application in that regard in the trial court subject to the condition that she will personally appear when the trial court so directs. In the present case, taking into consideration that the petitioner is a widow, I direct that personal attendance of the petitioner may be dispensed with on application in that regard in the trial court subject to the condition that she will personally appear when the trial court so directs. For this purpose at least two weeks time should be granted, so that in case petitioner is absent for any reason, she can get the information from his representing lawyer and appear. In case of non-appearance on the date fixed by the learned Magistrate, non-bailable warrant of arrest shall be issued for securing her attendance. ( 6 ) SUBJECT to the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. In view of the disposal of this application, filing of the certified copy of the trial court judgment is dispensed with. Application disposed of. 1. AIR 1978 SC 1568 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT-MUST OR NOT? By: Mohd. Shamim Addi. Distt, and Sessions Judge, Delhi Of late much has been said and written about so called Capital punishment. On the one hand there are people who are of the view that it is a relic of a wornout and effete civilization and smacks of barbarism. In the words of Mr. Bertrand Russel infliction of punishment on the criminals is nothing but a release of brutal instincts. Thus according to them extreme penalty of death has no place in modern epoch. Hence they consider it a necessary evil and sooner they are got rid of it, the better it would be for the country. On the other hand there are persons whose number is in no way less than the so called abolitionists who a re of the view that if the death penalty is taken out of the statute book, the world would become a hell and nothing would grow and prosper therein except the crime and criminals. A would-be criminal would not be afraid of anything, because he is cock sure of the fact, come what may, he is not going to die. He can as such do anything. In that eventuality, he can ignore and disregard the law with impunity. It is manifest from above that the question as to whether the capital punishment should be abolished or retainedt? is the most polemical one and it has become all the more so in recent times with the rapid strides of civilization. He can as such do anything. In that eventuality, he can ignore and disregard the law with impunity. It is manifest from above that the question as to whether the capital punishment should be abolished or retainedt? is the most polemical one and it has become all the more so in recent times with the rapid strides of civilization. Thus the matter is to be examined in a calm, cool and dispassionate way, without the emotions and sentiments which are usually got attached to it and which more often than not colour and cloud the vision and boggle down the outlook. The term punishment has no where been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However, according to the concise Oxford Dictionary it means to make an offender suffer for an offence. The punishment is inflicted on an offender in order to teach him a lesson so that he may not commit the crime again. The second aim of the punishment is to open the eyes of the would-be criminals that they are to be dealt with likewise in case they indulge in criminal activities: The infliction of the punishment also serves as an ointment on the wounded feelings of the society because whenever a crime is committed, it is not only the victim who suffers on that score, but the con science of the entire nation is shaken to its very foundation and there is a hue and cry that the offender should be brought to book. It is at that stage that the state applies a soothing balm on the wounds of the society by punishing the offender. In view of the above it can be said that there are four aims of the punishment (a) deterrent (b) preventive (c) retributory (d) reformative. (a) Deterrent theory of punishment: The chief aim of the punishment is to strike fear and awe in the minds of the potential criminal by making the offender an example for them. Whenever a man is punished for the crimes, a potential criminal is told in specific words that the same fate awaits him in case he takes the law into his own hands. Thus the punishment has got a deterring effect on the bad characters of the society. Whenever a man is punished for the crimes, a potential criminal is told in specific words that the same fate awaits him in case he takes the law into his own hands. Thus the punishment has got a deterring effect on the bad characters of the society. Nobody would dispute that it is only the fear in the mind of the potential criminal with which he resists the temptation of transgressing the limits of Jaw. (b) Preventive theory of punishment: The second end of the punishment is to see that the criminal does not repeat the crime. By punishing the criminal he is told that he is to be treated in this way in case he commits the crime again. Furthermore he is put behind the bars and is thus incapacitated and made incapable of committing the crime. So long as he remains in jail, the society is free from his evil influence. He is no more three to commit the crime. (c) Retributory theory of punishment: The third goal of the punishment is retribution. Whenever there is a commission of an offence, the state wants to recompense the victim for the injuries caused to him. The victim wants to avenge himself against the perpetrator of the crime who brought on him the ignominy, dishonour and humiliation. The above feeling and upsurge is not limited only to the victim and his relations but it permeates the entire society. Thus the infliction of the punishment on the wrong doer leads to the satisfaction of those instincts and feelings which are aroused in the wake of the commission of the offence. Hence the punishment acts as a catharsis. It leads to the purgation of emotions aroused as a consequence of crime. (d) Reformative theory of punishment: This is comparatively a recent view of the theory of punishment. According to the proponents of this theory the main aim of the punishment should be the reformation of the criminal and not his elimination from the society. They are of the view that a man is not a born criminal. He is rather a thrall of circumstances and not victorious subduer thereof. A crime is committed because of the evil influences of the society in which a child is brought up. Thus a healing process is necessary to wash off the said bad influences rather than the amputation of the limb which has got rotten. He is rather a thrall of circumstances and not victorious subduer thereof. A crime is committed because of the evil influences of the society in which a child is brought up. Thus a healing process is necessary to wash off the said bad influences rather than the amputation of the limb which has got rotten. A child brought up in good circumstances and healthy environment would never be inclined towards crime. Section 302 of the I. P. C. provides death penalty as an alternative punishment for an offence of murder. Now the question arises as to where does this punishment fit in, in the above scheme of things. I have already observed above that the abolitionists are of the view that it has got absolutely no place in the modern system of criminal jurisprudence. The main charges which have been levelled against it are the following: (a) It is irrevocable. Once a man has been executed, the matter ends then and there. (b) It is against the dignity and honour of a human being. (c) It has outlived its utility in the modern system of criminal justice. (d) It has got no deterring effect. (a) It is true and there is no gainsaying the fact that capital punishment is irrevocable in the sense that once a man has been executed, he cannot be revived because it is beyond human ingenuity to instill life into dead body. It is thus being urged for and on behalf of the abolitionists that if a man who is innocent, is found guilty by a court of law and is sentenced to death and executed, then in that eventuality nothing can be done for that poor creature. The above agreement is not without any substance. There have been cases in the history if criminal justice when innocent persons were found guilty and sentenced to death and executed. But I feel such cases are few and far between. They are very rare. Moreover, this is no ground for the abolition of death penalty. This can at the most be a ground for reformation in the administration of justice. The ingenuity of homosapions on the face of the earth, I feel has so far failed to devise a fool proof system wherein there are no chances of mistakes being crept in. Moreover, this is no ground for the abolition of death penalty. This can at the most be a ground for reformation in the administration of justice. The ingenuity of homosapions on the face of the earth, I feel has so far failed to devise a fool proof system wherein there are no chances of mistakes being crept in. What is possible and what can be done in the present set of circumstances is to minimise the mistakes to the fullest extent. This I think has already been done. According to the latest view of the Supreme Court the death penalty is to be awarded now in the rarest of rare cases. The court is now bound to give special reasons for awarding the death penalty to an accused under section 354 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, a duty has been cast on the shoulders of the court to hear the accused before sentencing him to an amount of punishment under section 235, Cr. P. C. It is evident from above, that our legislators in their wisdom have taken every possible precaution to avoid the mistakes and pitfalls during the trial and at the time of sentence. However, even then if there is any room for any mistake it is owing to human weakness and frailty which is innate and ingrained in human nature and thus cannot be avoided so long as man continues to be a being of flesh and blood. (b) The next argument advanced for and on behalf of the abolitionists is that the execution of a man in any manner, whatsoever, is so awful repulsive and repellent a sight that no sensible man can withstanding it and is likely to faint and get unconscious. According to them it is a release of brute energy and only a brute can face it. It is against all canons of a civilized society. Thus it cannot be tolerated anymore and should be done away with. There is some substance in the above argument. But to my mind the above argument cannot form the basis for the abolition of death penalty. I have already observed above that death penalty is an alternative punishment for an offence of murder. Thus it cannot be tolerated anymore and should be done away with. There is some substance in the above argument. But to my mind the above argument cannot form the basis for the abolition of death penalty. I have already observed above that death penalty is an alternative punishment for an offence of murder. It is then to be awarded in rarest of rare case where the murder is ghastly and gruesome, and diabolical in its execution and when even a thought of it is likely to send a shiver down ones spine. It is well known that punishment should always be co-equal to and in proportion with the crime committed by an individual in order to have a sobering and deterrent effect on others. A man who deprives another of his previous life, is it, too much to tell him that he is to be paid back in the same coin? I feel no reasonable and prudent man should have any grudge and grievance on that score. In fact life imprisonment which virtually means 12 or 14 years of imprisonment is a very poor substitute for capital punishment and rather looks ludicrous and out of all proportion. I am fortified in my above view by the observations of Kautiliya in his Arthshastra whoever imposes severe punishment becomes repulsive to the people; while he who awards mild punishment becomes contemptible, but who ever imposes punishment as deserved becomes respectable, For punishment Tdanda when awarded with due consideration, makes the people devoted to righteousness and works productive of wealth and enjoyment The above view was again reiterated by Manu in his Dand Neetit Dread of the rod alone restrains the bad, controls the good and makes a nation strong. The king must punish fearlessly else the strong would oppress the weak. It is the fear of punishment of the prison and the grave risk of forfeiture of life which restrains section of the population from criminality. It would also be worth while to cite certain lines from Mahabhartha in connection therewith. Udvogaparva: 72. 18 The sin that is committed by killing one who does not deserve to be killed is as great as the sin of not killing one who deserves to be killed. According to Islamic law, too, the punishment should be deterrent. It would also be worth while to cite certain lines from Mahabhartha in connection therewith. Udvogaparva: 72. 18 The sin that is committed by killing one who does not deserve to be killed is as great as the sin of not killing one who deserves to be killed. According to Islamic law, too, the punishment should be deterrent. An accused, once found guilty should be punished at a public place in order to open the eyes of a potential criminal. Islam has prescribed death penalty for a premediated murder. I am tempted here to cite verse 179 sura II from the Holy Quran to illustrate my point: Oh wise persons there is safety for your lives in death penalty and we hope that you would never violate it and would always abide by this law of tranquillity. The next charge against the capital punishment is that it is no more of any use. This is neither preventive of murder, nor it has got any deterrent effect. In any case there is no evidence to show that it pas had any deterrent effect. According to them Capital punishment has been in operation since times immemorial. In fact it is as old as the man. Yet the murders have been on the increase instead of decrease. Thus of what avail, it is to continue with it, any further? Hence it should be abolished. The argument is an ingenious one but can be brushed aside within an anon. The very fact that murders are being committed and in fact they have been on the increase throughout the world proves the necessity for the retention of the capital punishment. Had the capital punishment not been in force and operation, there would not have been any place on the face of the earth. This would have become a den of scoundrels, criminals and bad characters with no fear, whatever of any thing. Each one of them would have been convinced in his heart of hearts that he was free to do anything. Come what may he was not going to die. This would have become a den of scoundrels, criminals and bad characters with no fear, whatever of any thing. Each one of them would have been convinced in his heart of hearts that he was free to do anything. Come what may he was not going to die. I thus feel that it is the fear of capital punishment which compels a man to abide by law and to remain within its domain and not to transgress and infringe it The philosophy of deterrent punishment was beautifully summed up in the formula of the 18th Century Judge who told the defendant that you are to be hanged not because you have stolen a sheep but in order that others may not steal sheep. Of all the things which a man is afraid of, death can easily be mentioned at serial No. 1 of the list. We can hardly find a man who is not afraid of death. A man will go to any extent to save his life and that of his family members. It is because life is the most precious thing. It is thus but natural that death penalty must act as a great deterrent for potential criminal. Why a man is so much afraid of capital punishment and why it should act as deterrent can be best described in the words of Dostroyevsky a famous Russian Novelist. He has put the following words in the mouth of one of his characters in hi; illustrious novel Idiot while describing the horrors of death penalty; Yet perhaps the main and the most racking pain come not from your, wounds but from the certain knowledge that in an hour, then in 10 minutes, then in half a minute and then right away at this very instant, your soul will leave your body and you will no longer be man and this is for certain, the main thing is that it is for certain. Your head lies right under the knife and your hear its desent above your head it is that quarter of a second that is the most terrible of alt But at an execution the very last hope with which it is infinitely easier to die is taken away for certain sentence has been passed and the dreadful torment lies in the impossibility of escaping it, no anguish in the world can be greater. Lead a soldier to the battle field, place him opposite the very cannon and fire at him and he will still feel hope, but read out the inescapable sentence of death to that very soldier and he will go out, of his mind or burst into tears. The argument that death penalty is not preventive of crime to say the least is puerile. Once a man is executed he is no more there to commit the crime again. Thus by the execution of a criminal, the society is at least got rid of that man. Instances are not lacking when a man was seen committing murder again and again. In this connection we can safely refer to the case of Billa Ranga two well known criminals, who committed several murders before their execution for the murders of Chopra children. Had they been sentenced to life imprisonment, who knows they would have committed many more murders after their release from jail. Thus I feel that capital punishment does act as a deterrent. it prevents a potential criminal from committing the crime. The next argument which is put forward for the abolition of capital punishment is that it is nothing more than retribution which has got absolutely no place in modern criminal administration of justice. Hence the emphasis should be on the reformation of an individual i. e. criminal. To my mind the above view appears to be a simply a high sounding rhetoric, which serves no useful purpose except to gladden and please, the heart of a visionary. Retribution was and is and will continue, to be the most important aspect of the criminal administration of justice. In fact there cannot be any administration of justice, if we become oblivious of this aspect of the theory of punishment. To ignore it, is tantamount to ignoring the basic nature of man. Whenever a crime is committed against any person, the first instinct of the victim is to take revenge, and sometimes the crime is so heinous and ghastly that this feeling no more remains confined to the victim alone, but its tentacles spread to every nook and corner of the society, as a carollary whereof, there is an upsurge for revenge. Can any organ of the Govt. entrusted with the task of administering justice, afford to ignore it? The answer to the above query is an emphatic no. Can any organ of the Govt. entrusted with the task of administering justice, afford to ignore it? The answer to the above query is an emphatic no. If it does so, I feel it fails in its primary duty, which is to cater to those instincts. The feelings of vengeance have primitive unconscious roots. Arthus Koestler once remarked; The desire for vengeance has deep unconscious roots and is raised when we fell deep indignation or revulsion whether the reasoning mind approves it or not. The above view was again given vent to by Lord Denning before the Royal Commission; The punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens fur them. There are some murders which in the present state of public opinion demanded the most emphatic denunciation of all, namely the death penalty. It was observed by the Honble Supreme Court in Jag Mohan, Singh v. State of UP. (1973) 2 S. C R. p. 541, A large number of murders are undoubtedly of the common type. But some at least are diabolical in conception and cruel in execution. In some others where the victim is a person of high standing in the country, society is liable to be rocked to its very foundation. Such murders cannot simply be washed away by finding alibis in the social maladjustment of the murderer. Prevalence of such crimes, speaks, in the opinion of many, for the inevitability of the death penalty not only by way of deterrence but as a token of emphatic disapproval of the society. Justice Krishna Iyear at one time a renowned judge of the Supreme Court was and is one of the greatest exponents for the abolition of the capital punishment and spear headed the movement for the abolition of the death penalty. He gave vent to his feelings in one of his speeches which he delivered in the plenary session of the world conference on abolition of death penalty under the auspices of the Amnesty International where he called strongly to liquidate life taking lextalionis as it was utterly incongruous with all that is precious in human culture He said terror to meet terror non-sequitur. . is the scientific answer. . . can two murders be equal to no murder? Homicide is heinous, so is hanging. Can two wrongs make one right save, by a perverted moral. . is the scientific answer. . . can two murders be equal to no murder? Homicide is heinous, so is hanging. Can two wrongs make one right save, by a perverted moral. He went on to condemn the death penalty a criminological quackery and jurisprudential philistinism. Yet the same judge spoke like altogether a different man and expressed a contrary opinion when he was faced with a situation in which a man committed the blood curdling butchery of his own son. He observed in Paras Ram v. State of Punjab, SLP (Cr1.) Nos, 698 and 678 of 1973 decided on 9. 10. 76 The poignantly patholocial grip of macabre superstitions on some crude Indian minds in the shape of desire to do human and animal sacrifice in defiance, of the scientific ethos of our cultural heritage and the scientific impact of our technological century shows up in crimes of primitive horror such as the one we are dealing with, now where a blood curdling butchery of ones own beloved son was perpetrated aided by other pious criminals to propitiate some blood thirsty deity. Secular India speaking through the court must administer shock therapy to such anti-social piety when the manifestation is in terms of inhuman and criminal violence. When the disease is social deterrence through court sentence must perforce operate. It is manifest from above that there are certain crimes which are so brutal and heinous, gruesome that even a mention of them is sufficient enough to send a shiver down ones spine. It was while dealing with such types of crimes that even Me. Justice Krishna Iyer a great advocate for the abolition of death penalty thought it fit to confirm the extreme penalty of death awarded by the lower court in the case adverted to above and refused to set it aside. Mr. Justice Dharam Adhikari while referring to the defence plea in Pune, murder cases, for a lesser sentence, declared that it would fling to the winds the social security, According to him the accused had very well planned their diabolical activities and carried them to the bitter and without the least regard fur the age and sex of the victims. He further observed that even the death penalty was not sufficient enough to meet the ends of justice and any lesser sentence would be ludicrous and a mockery. He further observed that even the death penalty was not sufficient enough to meet the ends of justice and any lesser sentence would be ludicrous and a mockery. Justice Kotwal on the other hand observed, Even the death would have shed a tear and the gods would have been shocked by the atrocioue crimes committed by the accused, Bertran Russel in Mortals and others while commenting on corporal punishment observed; Indignation against crime is a natural emotion and causes men to think that severe penalties are desirable. But if the object is to prevent crime not merely to create pleasure to those who inflict punishment a more scientific attitude is desirable. The criminal presents a problem, psychological, educational sociological and economic, this difficult problem is not best handled in a state of blind rage. It implies thereby that Bertrand Russel is dead against capital punishment nay against any sort of punishment because according to him crime is social, economic and psychological phenomenon and as such it should be dealt with and looked upon with that angle. Yet at the same he admits the existence of a number of persons who are sadistic, and take pleasure in inflicting punishment over others. The above enunciation of the learned Philospher has got a dual meaning. It refers not only to those who are in a position to inflict punishment and thus derive pleasure thereby such as Hitlar Eichmen. Rodulf Hess (a deputy of Adolf Hitler) who died in Aug. 1987 but it can safely be applied even to those who enjoy and take pleasure in committing crime. To illustrate my point I would like to cite the case of Barbie who is being tried for his atrocities against the jews. Lise Lesevre one of the victims of Nazi torture who is a prosecution witness against Barbie described him in the following words:. . . He was viper What struck me was the type of happiness he got when he hurt someone. I wonder where beings like that are made. To the latter category belongs to Billa and Ranga (executed for the murder of Chopra Children) Kartar Singh and Ujagar Singh (executed for the murder of Vidya Jam), Raman Raghav (facing trial as he is alleged to have killed 42 persons ). The pertinent question thus arises as to how to deal with them? To the latter category belongs to Billa and Ranga (executed for the murder of Chopra Children) Kartar Singh and Ujagar Singh (executed for the murder of Vidya Jam), Raman Raghav (facing trial as he is alleged to have killed 42 persons ). The pertinent question thus arises as to how to deal with them? The only possible reply to the said question is that the society would be better of without them and they thus should be eliminated. Even the members of medical profession are of the view that if a person is completely bereft of moral values and is a psychopath then it is of house to retain him and he should be regarded as a refuse and should be dealt with likewise. Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru our late Prime Minister was against capital punishment but even he was of the view that a certain method has to be found out to deal with certain undesirable elements who are incorrigible and nuisance to the society. I am tempted over here to reproduce his above opinion in his own words, TIJ do hate the idea of punishment especially deterrent punishment and all the suffering deliberately caused that it involves. Perhaps that it cannot be done away with completely in this present day world of ours but it certainly can be minimised toned dawn and almost humanized. At one time I was strongly opposed to the death penalty and in theory my opposition still continues And yet with all my repugnance for executions I feel that some method of eliminating utterly undesirable human beings will have to be adopted and used with discretion. There are jurists who believe that a criminal is born. According to them a born criminal is incorrigible and he cannot be reformed. He has an irresistible temptation to commit crimes. He has got a proclivity to commit crimes. Raman Raghav to illustrate the point is alleged to have committed 42 murders. On being questioned on 21. 7. 87 by justices R. A. Jagirdar and A. D. Tated of the Honble High Court of Bombay as to why did he commit the murders? He told that he had committed the murders because he was ordained to do so by God Almighty. According to Mr. Lombroso an illustrious jurists (1836-1909) a criminal behaved as he did because he was born so. He told that he had committed the murders because he was ordained to do so by God Almighty. According to Mr. Lombroso an illustrious jurists (1836-1909) a criminal behaved as he did because he was born so. Jeremy Taylor while animadverting on human nature observed the following: A herd of wolves is quieter and more at one than so many men, unless they all had one reason in them, or have one power over them. The above view is very much akin to the view expressed by Manu a great jurist of our country alluded to above. Now the question which comes to the tip of the tongue is as to whether the circumstances and conditions obtaining in our country justify the abolition of the capital punishment? Would it be in the interest of the country? The country, nobody would disagree with me, when I say, is passing through a very critical period. The situation in Punjab in particular and in other parts of the country in general is very grim, grave and serious. A man who leaves his house in the morning, is not sure to return safe and alive in the evening. There have been massacres and brutal killing on the buses, at bus stands and even at the houses of the people. Minister of state for home P. Chidambaram said while replying to a question in Rajya Sabha that 777 persons were killed in terrorist violence in Punjab between 12. 5. 87 to Jan. 1988 according to information furnished by Punjab Govt. It was perhaps the above situation and circumstances in view, which constrained Shri Venkata Raman (President of India) to exhort on Jan. 9, 1987 for international action to provide for death penalty to terrorists even in those countries which have abolished this penalty. There is yet another serious problem besetting the country i. e. of bride burning which is known as a dowry death case. It has assumed such sinister proportions that the Government was compelled to amend I. P. C. and to introduce therein section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. Sardar Buta Singh Home Minister of India declared on the floor of the Parliament as reported in Hindustan Times on 2. 3. 1988 that as many as 1319 cases of dowry deaths were registered during 1986 and 1487 during 1987. Sardar Buta Singh Home Minister of India declared on the floor of the Parliament as reported in Hindustan Times on 2. 3. 1988 that as many as 1319 cases of dowry deaths were registered during 1986 and 1487 during 1987. According to Shri Bharat Singh Home Minister of M. P. 1271 dowry related murders were registered in between January 1987 and 1988 (The above information was furnished on floor of the assembly ). To nip the above mischief in the bud Justice A. P. Sen and V. B. Eradi of the Supreme Court laid down in a dowry death case that in all such dowry death cases where the guilt of the accused is proved, it is the duty of the court to deal with the accused in the most severe and strict manner and award the maximum penalty. This means that in all such cases courts have no option between awarding the two punishments prescribed by the I. P. C. for the murder viz, life sentence and death. Rajasthan High Court issued 'red warrants' in a dowry death case and directed the jail authorities to hang in a public place Lichma Devi and Jagdish Khalik awarded death penalty in two separate bride burning cases. (Reported in Hindustan Times on 6. 12. 1985 ). It can be safely inferred from the facts! incidents and figures canvassed above that it would be height of an absurdity to do away with the capital punishment. Law Commission of India in its 35th report reiterated the same view, Having regard however to the conditions in India, to the variety of social upbringing of its inhabitants, to the disparity, in the level of morality and education in the country, to the vastness of its area, to the diversity of its population and to the need of maintaining law and order in the country at the present juncture, India cannot risk the experiment of abolition of capital punishment. Even the countries which abolished the death penalty have either retained it for certain specific offence or reintroduced it in the wake of peculiar circumstances which ensued later on. It was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A. I. R. 1980 S. C. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab para 118, In England death penalty was retained for high treason in the Silverman Bill of 1956. It was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A. I. R. 1980 S. C. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab para 118, In England death penalty was retained for high treason in the Silverman Bill of 1956. Even at present for that offence death penalty is a valid sanction. In the aftermath of assassination of Prime-Minister Bandar Naike in 1959 Ceylon hurriedly introduced capital punishment for murder owing to similar considerations. Israel sanctioned death penalty for crimes committed against the jewish people and executed the notorious jew baiter Adolf Eichman in 1962. TI The Supreme Court of America declared the death penalty as ultra vires of the Constitution in Furman v. Georgia, on 29. 6. 1976. But this view was repelled subsequently by the chosen representatives of the people in as much as the legislatures of the 32 States reintroduced the capital punishment for murder and other various offences. According to a refrendum conducted by London Tabloidsun 8o% of those interviewed were for hanging the murderers. Moreover it has been observed that ill countries where the punishments are severe and deterrent and speedy and capital punishment in operation, crime rate is lower in comparison to the countries where it is not so. William Ragers an American Minister of Foreign Affairs while visiting Saudi Arabia admitted that he had such a feeling of security over there, which he had not felt anywhere and there was no need of any guard. (Vide conference of jurists at Riyad on 23. 3. 1972 ). According to the report of Amnesty International (1979) only 18 States have so far done away with the capital punishment. It implies thereby that most of the states have retained it on account of its efficacy. So why we can not? and why we should not? .