K. N. SINGH, J.

Smt. Shashi Nayar wife of Raj Gopal Nayar who has been awarded death sentence for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC for short] has approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of death penalty

2. Raj Gopal Nayar, the petitioners husband was tried for offence under Section 302, IPC for having killed his father and step-brother. The Sessions Judge by his judgment and other dated April 24, 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 Session 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 and 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 of 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 October 26, 1991. 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 October 25, 1991 and the matter was referred to the Constitution Beach 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 submissions

(1) Capital punishment is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of the 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 hit deprives them of their fundamental rights under Article 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 [LQ/SC/1972/483] : 1973 SCC(Cri) 169 : 1973 AIR(SC) 947) and in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab ( 1980 (2) SCC 684 [LQ/SC/1980/256] : 1980 SCC(Cri) 580 ) this Court has on a detailed consideration, held that the capital punishment does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution. In Bachan Singh case ( 1980 (2) SCC 684 [LQ/SC/1980/256] : 1980 SCC(Cri) 580 ), the Court considered all the questions raised in this petition expect 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 Singh ( 1973 (1) SCC 20 [LQ/SC/1972/483] : 1973 SCC(Cri) 169 : 1973 AIR(SC) 947) and Bachan Singh ( 1980 (2) SCC 684 [LQ/SC/1980/256] : 1980 SCC(Cri) 580 ) cases is incorrect and it requires reconsideration by a larger bench. He, therefore, requested us to refer the matter to a large 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 Article 21 of the Constitution and as such the Court should consider the matter again. We are fully conscious of the effect of the award of capital punishment. But we are of the opinion that the capital punishment as provided by the law is to be awarded in rarest of the rare cases as held by this Court. The procedure established by law for awarding the death penalty is reasonable and it does not in any way violate the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution. Since we agree with the view taken by the majority in Bachan Singh ( 1980 (2) SCC 684 [LQ/SC/1980/256] : 1980 SCC(Cri) 580 ) and Jagmohan Singh ( 1973 (1) SCC 20 [LQ/SC/1972/483] : 1973 SCC(Cri) 169 : 1973 AIR(SC) 947) cases, we do not find any valid ground to refer the matter to a larger bench. Learned counsel urged that the majority opinion in Bachan Singh case ( 1980 (2) SCC 684 [LQ/SC/1980/256] : 1980 SCC(Cri) 580 ) was founded upon the 35th Report of the Law Commission submitted in 1967, which summarises the recommendations in the following words

"Having regard, however, to the conditions in India, to the variety of the 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 paramount need for maintaining law and order in the country at the present juncture India cannot risk the experiment of abolition of capital punishment." *

6. Shri Jain urged that the above Report indicates that in 1967 the Law Commission was of the opinion that the country should not take the risk of experimenting with abolition of capital punishment. However, since then much water has run under the bridge. Further, there is no empirical study before the Court to show that the situation which prevailed in 1967 is still continuing. Hence, the Court should reconsider the matter. We do not find any merit in this submission. The death penalty has a deterrent effect and it does serve a social purpose. The majority opinion in Bachan Sing case ( 1980 (2) SCC 684 [LQ/SC/1980/256] : 1980 SCC(Cri) 580 held that having regard to the social conditions in our country the stage was not ripe for taking a risk of abolishing it. No material has been placed before us to show that the view taken in Bachan Singh case ( 1980 (2) SCC 684 [LQ/SC/1980/256] : 1980 SCC(Cri) 580 ) requires reconsideration. Further, a judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the law and order situation in the country has not only not improved since 1967 but has deteriorated over the years and is fast worsening today. The present is, therefore, the most inopportune time to reconsider the law on the subject. Hence the request for referring the matter to a larger bench is rejected

7. As regards the method of execution of the capital punishment by handing, this Court considered the same in detail in Deena v. Union of India ( 1983 (4) SCC 645 [LQ/SC/1983/262] : 1983 SCC(Cri) 879) and held that hanging by neck was a scientific and one of the least painful methods of execution of the death sentence. We find no justification for taking a different view. Shri Jain, however, brought to our notice that a learned Judge of this Court while siting during vacation had issued notice to the State on the question as to whether the execution by hanging is cruel and unusual procedure. Hence, he urged that we should entertain this petition and reconsider the question. Since the question of the mode of execution of capital punishment has already considered in detail by this Court in Deena case ( 1983 (4) SCC 645 [LQ/SC/1983/262] : 1983 SCC(Cri) 879), we do not find any good reason to take a different view

8. The question of reasonableness in the award of the capital punishment of Raj Gopal Nayar has been considered by the High Court and this Court at various stages and consistently it has been answered against the prisoner. Hence the petition fails and it accordingly dismissed. Interim relief order dated October 25, 1991 in vacated.