ORDER

Smt. Shashi Nayar wife of Raj Gopal Nayar who has been awarded death sentence for offence under S. 302 of the Penal Code (IPC for short) has approached this Court by means of this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of death penalty.

2. Raj Gopal Nayar, the petitioners husband was tried for offence under S. 302, IPC for having killed his father and step brother. The Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 24-4-1986 convicted Raj Gopal Nayar and awarded sentence of death. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the death penalty and dismissed Raj Gopals appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge. Raj Gopal thereafter filed a special leave petition before this Court challenging the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge and the High Court, but the special leave petition was also dismissed by this Court. Review petition filed by him was also dismissed. Consequently, his conviction and the sentence of death stood confirmed by all the courts. Thereupon, he filed mercy petitions before the Governor of Jammu & Kashmir and the President of India, but the same were rejected. He challenged the order of the President of India rejecting the mercy petition before this Court by means of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, but the same was also dismissed. Another writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court for quashing the sentence imposed on him but the same was also rejected. As the legal proceedings before the Court failed, he was to be hanged on 26-10-199 1. Smt. Shashi Nayar, the petitioner, thereupon filed the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court challenging the validity of the capital punishment with a prayer for the quashing of the sentence awarded to Raj Gopal Nayar. The petition was entertained by a Division Bench on 25-10-1991 and the matter was referred to the Constitution Bench for consideration, and meanwhile the execution of the condemned prisoner was stayed.

3. Mr. Ravi K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissios.

(1) Capital punishment is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the Article absolutely prohibits deprivation of a persons life.

(2) Capital punishment does not serve any social purpose and in the absence of any study, the barbaric penalty of death should not be awarded to any person as it has no deterrent effect.

(3) The penalty of death sentence has a dehumanising effect on the close relations of the victims and it deprives them of their fundamental rights under Art. 21 of the Constitution, to a meaningful life.

(4) The execution of capital punishment by hanging is barbaric and dehumanising. This should be substituted by some other decent and less painful method in executing the sentence.

4. The questions raised by Shri Jain have already been considered by this Court in detail on more than one occasion. In Jagmohan Singh v. State of U. P. (1973) 1 SCC 20 and in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1979) 3 CC 727, this Court has on a detailed consideration, held that the capital punishment does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution. In Bachan Singhs case (supra), the Court considered all the questions raised in this petition except question No. 4, and the majority judgment rejected the same by a detailed reasoned order. Since we fully agree with those reasons, we do not consider it necessary to reiterate the same.

5. Learned counsel further urged that the view taken in Jagmohan Singhs and Bachan Singhs cases (supra) is incorrect and it requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. He, therefore, requested us to refer the matter to a larger Bench as the question relates to the life of a citizen. He urged that the award of death penalty is a serious matter as it deprives a citizen of his life in violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution and as such the court should consider the matter again. We are fully consci