Capital Punishment Jurisprudence in India: Recent Supreme Court Precedents Explained

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has once again demonstrated the evolving capital punishment jurisprudence in India by commuting two death sentences to life imprisonment without remission in separate cases decided in July 2025. These landmark decisions by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta underscore the Court’s emphasis on considering mitigating circumstances, psychological factors, and social background studies in death penalty cases. The judgments mark a significant shift in capital punishment jurisprudence in India, moving beyond the mere brutality of crimes to examine the holistic circumstances surrounding both the offense and the offender.

Legal Framework Governing Death Penalty in India

Constitutional Provisions

The death penalty in India finds its constitutional foundation in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. However, this right is not absolute and can be curtailed through a procedure established by law. The Constitution expressly recognizes capital punishment in Article 72, which empowers the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment, including death sentences [2].

Statutory Framework

The Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Section 302, prescribes punishment for murder as either death or imprisonment for life. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under Section 354(3), mandates that when a court sentences a person to death, it must state special reasons for such punishment in the judgment. This provision ensures that death sentences are not awarded arbitrarily and require specific justification based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), under Section 6, provides for aggravated sexual assault on minors, which can attract capital punishment in the rarest of rare cases. This legislation was particularly relevant in one of the cases decided by the Supreme Court, where the convict was charged under POCSO provisions alongside the Indian Penal Code.

The ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine

Evolution of the Doctrine

The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine was established in the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), which laid down that death penalty should be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. The Supreme Court in Bachan Singh held that the death sentence should be imposed only when the crime is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.

Modern Application

The recent judgments reflect a more nuanced application of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, incorporating factors beyond the mere nature of the crime. The Court has emphasized that psychological analysis, social background studies, and mitigating circumstances must be thoroughly examined before imposing capital punishment. This approach aligns with the evolving international standards on human rights and the abolition of death penalty.

Analysis of Recent Supreme Court Decisions

Case 1: Karnataka Murder Case – Byluru Thippaiah

The first case involved Byluru Thippaiah, who was convicted for the brutal murder of his wife, sister-in-law, and three children in Karnataka in 2017. The convict believed that his wife had an immoral character and that the three children were born from such immoral activities. Both the trial court and the Karnataka High Court had sentenced him to death.

Mitigating Circumstances Considered

The Supreme Court examined several mitigating factors that were inadequately considered by the lower courts. The probation report revealed that Thippaiah had no criminal antecedents, and his conduct and behavioral report from prison authorities showed good moral character and excellent conduct with fellow prisoners and prison officials. Significantly, he had become literate while in prison through the Basic Literacy Program organized by the Zilla Lok Shiksha Samiti and had obtained a good rank [3].

Psychological Analysis

The Court noted that the convict had suffered from mental health struggles throughout his incarceration. He had attempted suicide on two occasions within jail – once upon learning about his family’s death and again when he was sentenced to death. The mitigation report revealed his troubled past, including lack of parental love, extreme insecurity following his brother’s death, school dropout, and depression following the breakdown of his first marriage.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Sanjay Karol, writing for the bench, observed that while the crime was of the most reprehensible nature, the sum total of circumstances that drove the appellant to commit the crime suggested that the death penalty might not be appropriate. The Court held that “considering the sum-total of circumstances that drove the appellant-convict to this point of committing this crime of a most reprehensible nature, the death penalty may not be appropriate.”

Case 2: Uttarakhand Rape and Murder Case – Jai Prakash

The second case involved Jai Prakash, who was convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl in Dehradun in 2018. The convict had lured the child to his hut where she was raped and subsequently strangled to death. Both the trial court in 2019 and the Uttarakhand High Court in January 2020 had concurrently sentenced him to death.

Charges and Conviction

Jai Prakash was convicted under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (destruction of evidence), 376 (rape), and 377 (unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act for aggravated sexual assault on a minor. The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court, but the sentence was modified.

Mitigating Factors

The District Probation Officer’s report from Ayodhya revealed that the convict’s family condition was “very pathetic” as they earned their livelihood through manual labor. The psychological report indicated that he had not attended school due to poor socio-economic conditions at home and had been engaged in menial jobs to support his family from the tender age of 12 years. His conduct in jail was satisfactory, maintaining good relations with fellow inmates without any psychiatric disturbances.

Court’s Observation

Justice Karol observed that the lower courts had only commented on the brutality of the crime to justify the death penalty, without discussing other circumstances that would place the case in the ‘rarest of the rare’ category. The Court noted that “such an approach in our view cannot be sustained,” emphasizing that a holistic evaluation of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances is essential.

The Manoj vs State of MP Precedent

Background of the Case

The Supreme Court relied heavily on its 2023 decision in Manoj vs State of MP, which established crucial precedents for death penalty sentencing. This case involved a triple murder committed during a robbery, where the Court emphasized the need for courts to consider the entire background of facts and circumstances before sending a person to the “precipice of death” [4].

Key Principles Established 

The Manoj case established several important principles for capital punishment jurisprudence:

1. Comprehensive Background Study: Courts must conduct thorough social background studies and psychological analyses before imposing death sentences.

    

2. Individualized Sentencing: Each case must be evaluated on its unique circumstances, focusing on both the crime and the criminal.

    

3. Mitigation Evidence: Courts must actively seek and consider mitigation evidence, including the convict’s personal history, family background, and potential for rehabilitation.

    

4. Procedural Safeguards: The judgment emphasized the need for proper procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary imposition of death sentences.

    

Regulatory Framework and Procedural Safeguards

Mandatory Requirements

The Supreme Court has established several mandatory requirements for death penalty cases:

1. Special Reasons: Under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, courts must provide special reasons for awarding death sentences.

    

2. Confirmation by High Court: All death sentences must be confirmed by the High Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    

3. Mitigating Circumstances: Courts must examine all mitigating circumstances, including the convict’s background, mental state, and potential for rehabilitation.

    

Social Background Studies

The Court has emphasized the importance of comprehensive social background studies in death penalty cases. These studies should include:

• Family history and socio-economic background
• Educational background and employment history
• Mental health assessment and psychological evaluation
• Criminal antecedents and character assessment
• Conduct in prison and potential for reformation

International Perspective and Human Rights Considerations

Global Trend Towards Abolition

The Supreme Court’s approach reflects the global trend towards abolition of the death penalty. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which India is a signatory, encourages the abolition of capital punishment and restricts its application to the most serious crimes.

Safeguards and Guarantees

The United Nations Economic and Social Council has established safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, including:

• Restriction to the most serious crimes
• Exclusion of persons under 18 years of age
• Prohibition of execution of pregnant women
• Right to seek pardon or commutation
• Adequate legal representation

Impact on Indian Criminal Justice System

Precedents in Capital Punishment Jurisprudence

These recent decisions create important precedents for lower courts in death penalty cases. The emphasis on psychological analysis and social background studies will likely influence future capital punishment jurisprudence across Indian courts.

Prison Reforms

The Court’s consideration of prison conduct and rehabilitation potential highlights the importance of prison reforms and educational programs for convicts. The case of Byluru Thippaiah, who became literate in prison, demonstrates the potential for reformation even in serious criminal cases.

Legal Practice in Capital Punishment

The judgments will likely influence legal practice in capital punishment cases, with defense lawyers placing greater emphasis on mitigation evidence and comprehensive background studies. Prosecutors will need to establish not only the brutality of the crime but also the absence of mitigating circumstances.

Challenges and Future Directions

Implementation Challenges

While the Supreme Court has established clear guidelines, implementation at the trial court level remains challenging. Many trial courts lack the resources and expertise to conduct comprehensive psychological evaluations and social background studies.

Need for Specialized Training

There is a pressing need for specialized training for judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers in capital punishment cases. This training should focus on identifying and evaluating mitigating circumstances, understanding psychological factors, and conducting proper social background studies.

Infrastructure Development

The criminal justice system requires infrastructure development to support comprehensive evaluation in death penalty cases. This includes establishing specialized units for psychological evaluation, social work departments for background studies, and proper documentation systems.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in commuting death sentences to life imprisonment represent a significant evolution in Indian capital punishment jurisprudence. By emphasizing the importance of psychological analysis, social background studies, and comprehensive evaluation of mitigating circumstances, the Court has moved beyond a purely retributive approach to criminal justice.

These judgments underscore the principle that the death penalty should truly be reserved for the rarest of rare cases, where not only the crime is exceptionally heinous but also where there are no mitigating circumstances that could justify a lesser punishment. The Court’s approach reflects a more humane and scientifically informed understanding of criminal behavior and the factors that contribute to criminal conduct.

The decisions also highlight the importance of proper procedural safeguards in capital punishment jurisprudence and the need for courts to look beyond the immediate circumstances of the crime to understand the broader context in which it was committed. This holistic approach to criminal justice is essential for ensuring that the death penalty, if retained, is applied fairly and consistently.

As India continues to grapple with the question of capital punishment, these judgments provide valuable guidance for maintaining the delicate balance between protecting society from the most serious crimes and ensuring that the ultimate punishment is imposed only after the most careful consideration of all relevant factors. The emphasis on rehabilitation potential and the possibility of reformation also reflects a more progressive approach to criminal justice that prioritizes human dignity and the potential for redemption.

References

[1] Verdictum. (2025). “He Should Spend His Days In Jail Attempting To Repent For The Crimes: Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Who Killed Wife & Children.” Available at: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/byluru-thippaiah-byaluru-thippaiah-nayakara-thippaia-v-state-of-karnataka-2025-insc-862-commutes-death-sentence-jail-repent-crimes-killing-wife-children-1585117 

[2] Constitution of India, Article 21 and Article 72. Available at: https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india 

[3] LiveLaw. (2025). “Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Convicted For Rape-Murder Of 10 Yr Old Girl To Life Term Without Remission.” Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-commutes-death-penalty-of-man-convicted-for-rape-murder-of-10-yr-old-girl-to-life-term-without-remission-297950 

[4] Indian Kanoon. (2023). “Manoj Kumar Soni vs The State Of M.P. on 11 August, 2023.” Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167720008/ 

[5] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 

[6] SCCOnline. (2023). “Supreme Court, in a balancing act, commutes Death Sentence to 20 Years Imprisonment in Indiscriminate Firing case that killed 6.” Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/11/14/supreme-court-commutes-death-sentence-to-20-years-imprisonment-in-indiscriminate-firing-case-legal-news/