PAN MOHAMAD FAIZ

Adanya penjatuhan hukuman mati merupakan hal yang selalu hangat untuk diperdebatkan, termasuk dari sudut pandang kontitusionalitas di masing-masing negara. Begitu pula dengan di Indonesia, perdebatan mengenai perlu dipertahankan atau dihapusnya hukuman mati sudah memasuki ranah pengadilan, tepatnya dimulai ketika terdapat permohonan uji konstitusionalitas hukuman mati pada UU Narkotika di hadapan Mahakamah Konstitusi RI. Tulisan berikut merupakan bagian pertama dari rangkaian tulisan dengan topik “hukuman mati” yang akan dipaparkan dalam beberapa waktu ke depan.

***

Ketentuan mengenai penjatuhan hukuman mati sebagai hukuman alternatif untuk tindak pidana pembunuhan berdasarkan Pasal 302 Indian Penal Code/IPC (KUHP India)[1] ditegaskan mempunyai keabsahan konstitusi yang tidak melanggar Pasal 14,[2] Pasal 19[3] dan Pasal 21[4] dari Konstitusi India (Constitution of India) dalam beberapa perkara. Pendapat tersebut diputuskan pada perkara Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P.[5], di mana keabsahan konstitusi dari hukuman mati haruslah diuji terlebih dahulu terhadap Pasal 14, Pasal 19, dan Pasal 21 dari Konstitusi India yang memuat hak untuk hidup sebagai hak pokok untuk menikmati kebebasan sebagaimana juga dinyatakan dalam Pasal 19 Konstitusi India.

Selain itu pemohon juga mengemukakan bahwa Hukum Acara Pidana India menentukan tata cara untuk menemukan kesalahan dari terdakwa, tetapi hukuman yang diberikan berdasarkan Pasal 302 IPC yang memberikan diskresi tidak terarah dan tidak terkontrol telah membawa Hakim untuk menentukan hukuman yang diberikan. Mahkamah Agung India menyatakan bahwa hukuman mati sebagai hukuman alternatif berdasarkan Pasal 302 IPC adalah tidak tak beralasan dan hal tersebut juga merupakan kepentingan umum. Perlindungan prosedural yang diberikan kepada terdakwa atas dasar Hukum Acara Pidana India juga tidak tak beralasan bila dikatakan meninggalkan diskresi tanpa arahan kepada hakim untuk menjatuhkan hukuman kepada terdakwa yang sudah dinyatakan bersalah atas pembunuhan, dengan hukuman penjara seumur hidup atau hukuman mati sebagai hukuman alternatif.

Meskipun demikian Mahkamah tidak menerima anggapan bahwa keabsahan dari hukuman mati harus diuji berdasarkan Pasal 14 dan Pasal 19 dari Konstitusi India itu sendiri. Namun pada akhirnya dalam perkara Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P.,[6] Mahkamah menerima dalil bahwa konstitusionalitas hukuman mati dapat diuji berdasarkan Pasal 14, 19 dan 21 dari Konstitusi India. Mahkamah Agung India menyarankan bahwa dalam keadaaan yang dikecualikan, hukman mati dapat dijatuhkan hanya apabila kepentingan umum, perlindungan sosial dan keinginan masyarakat luas membenarkan hal tersebut. Hukuman yang keras hanya dapat diberikan kepada lingkungan dan perilaku yang keras pula. Mahkamah dalam perkara Barchan Singh v. State of Punjab[7] kembali menguatkan konstitusionalitas dari penjatuhan hukuman mati. Dalam perkara tersebut, Mahkamah berpendapat bahwa ketentuan IPC tersebut tidak mempunyai keterkaitan dengan Pasal 19 ayat (1) Konstitusi India. Jika dampak dari ketentuan hukum tersebut membawa ketidaksetujuan terhadap hak yang diatur dalam Pasal 19 ayat (1) hanya berlaku insidental, tidak langsung, sangat tipis batasannnya dan tidak aja jaminan, maka Pasal 19 tidak dapat dijadikan batu uji untuk keabsahannya

Dengan demikin, Mahkamah menyatakan bahwa untuk menentukan keabsahan konstitusionalitas Pasal 302 IPC tidak diperlukan pengujiannya terhadap Pasal 19. Prosedur yang disediakan dalam KUHAP India untuk menjatuhkan pidana mati kepada pelaku kejahatan pembunuhan juga tidak bisa dikatakan tidak adil, tidak beralasan dan tidak adil. Akan tetapi, Hakim Agung Bhagwati dalam dissenting opinionnya berpendapat bahwa Pasal 302 IPC dan Pasal 354 ayat (3) KUHAP India bertentangan dengan Pasal 14 dan Pasal 21 Konstitusi India, karena ketentuan-ketentuan tersebut memberikan kekuasaan yang tidak terarah kepada pengadilan sehingga tidak logis dan tidak dibatasi oleh hukum.

Dari uraian di atas, dapat disimpulkan bahwa hukuman mati hanya bisa dijatuhkan dalam perkara “the rarest of the rare case” (perkara yang sangat khusus dari yang terkhusus). Mahkamah Agung India dalam perkara Machhi Sing v. State of Punjab[8] memberikan panduan secara umum terhadap situasi dan kondisi di mana hukuman mati dapat dijatuhkan, yaitu haruslah memperhatikan apakah terdapat suatu hal yang tidak biasa dari kejahatan yang terjadi dan adanya dorongan dari keadaan sekitarnya untuk dijatuhkannya hukuman mati dengan terlebih dahulu mempertimbangkan maksimum usia dari sang terdakwa. Hal ini terkait dengan tujuan untuk meredakan kondisi dari lingkungan disekitarnya.

Terpidana Jumman Kahn harus menghadapi tiang gantung setelah dijatuhkan hukuman mati karena melakukan pemerkosaan secara sadis dan juga menyebabkan kematian seorang gadis kecil berumur enam tahun bernama Sakina. Terpidana tersebut mengajukan permohonan uji konstitusionalitas terhadap hukuman mati.[9] Dalam argumennya dijelaskan bahwa hukuman mati bukan hanya sudah ketinggalan jaman, tidak masuk akal, kejam, tidak lazim, tetapi juga bertentangan dengan derajat individu di mana persoalan ini memerlukan pertimbangan apakah hal tersebut justru lebih membawa pada kesengsaraan, degradasi dan penindasan terhadap umat manusia.

Mahkamah ketika mengemukakan pendapat awalnya mengenai konstitusionalitas atas hukuman mati menyatakan bahwa kesalahan untuk tidak menjatuhkan hukuman mati terhadap perkara yang serius tersebut justru merupakan kejahatan terhadap masyarakat, khususnya dalam perkara pembunuhan yang sangat sadis yang akan membawa terdakwa kepada titik hukuman mati yang disediakan oleh Pasal 302 IPC. Satu-satunya hukuman yang pantas diterima oleh terpidana atas terbuktinya perbuatan pembunuhan yang keji dan mengerikan terhadap seorang gadis kecil yang tidak bersalah untuk sekedar memuaskan nafsunya tidak lain yaitu hukuman mati sebagai langkah yang dibutuhkan oleh masyarkat dan juga berarti sebagai cara untuk menghalangi tindakan serupa dari pelaku potensial lainnya.

Mahkamah Agung dalam perkara sebelumnya yaitu Bachan Sing v. State Punjab[10] menguatkan keabsahan konstitusionalitas terhadap penjatuhan hukuman mati sebagai pilihan alternatif dari penjara seumur hidup dan hal tersebut tidaklah melanggar Pasal 14 dan Pasal 21 Konstitusi India. Ketua Mahkamah Agung, Chandrachud, memberikan pandangan mewakili tiga Hakim Agung dalam perkara Sher Sing v. State Punjab[11] yang menyatakan bahwa hukuman mati diakui konstitusionalitasnya dan diizinkan atas nama hukum selama mengikuti ketentuan dalam perkara Bachan Sing. Hal tersebut kemudian diterima sebagai hukum positif yang berlaku di seluruh wilayah India. Keputusan-keputusan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah setelah perdebatan panjang akhirnya diterima tanpa adanya penolakan berarti sampai dengan adanya alasan-alasan kuat terbaru lainnya di masa yang akan datang.

Permohonan yang terkait dengan konstitusionalitas hukuman mati juga terjadi pada perkraa Triveniben v. State of Gujarat[12] dan perkara Allauddin[13], di mana Mahkamah Agung India menegaskan sekaligus menyetujui bahwa Konstitusi India tidak melarang hukuman mati.

Perlu digarisbawahi di sini, bahwa hanya dalam perkara yang sangat jarang, para pembuat undang-undang dengan kearifannya, dipertimbangkan perlunya penjatuhan hukum mati untuk menghalangi orang lain melakukan hal yang serupa dan untuk melindungi masyarakat. Pilihan untuk penghukuman diberikan melalui ketentuan tambahan di mana hakim dapat memberikan terdakwa dengan hukuman keras yang disediakan dengan memberikan alasan khusus atas pilihan yang diambilnya itu. Ketentuan pada Pasal 302 IPC konsisten terhadap ketentuan Konstitusi pada Pasal 21 di mana pelarangan terhadap kebebasan pribadi atau hidup dari setiap individual tidak dapat diambil kecuali berdasarkan prosedur yang ditetapkan oleh hukum. Apakah hukuman mati melanggar ketentuan Pasal 14, Pasal 19 dan Pasal 21 dari Konstitusi India dapat ditemukan dalam pertimbangan yang dikemukakan oleh Mahkamah Agung pada perkara Bachan Singh v. State of Punja[14]b dan Mahkamah memberikan pendirian yang negative akan hal itu.

Di dalam ketentuan pada Pasal 354 bagian ketiga dari KUHAP India mensyaratkan adanya pemberian alasan khusus apabila ingin menjatukan hukuman mati di mana hal tersebut sejalan dengan Pasal 21 Konstitusi India yang menyatakan bahwa “pelarangan terhadap kebebasan pribadi atau hidup dari setiap individual tidak dapat diambil kecuali berdasarkan prosedur yang ditetapkan oleh hukum”. Kemudian, permohonan penghukuman mati dalam setiap perkara tidak dapat dielakkan sebab hukuman mati tidak dapat dikatakan melanggar ketentuan pada Pasal 21 Konstitusi India. Pasal 302 KUHP India memang sepertinya “melemparkan” tugas berat kepada pengadilan untuk memilih di antara hukuman mati atau penjara seumur hidup, sehingga pengadilan harus menunjukkan perhatian yang sangat tinggi dan kepekaannya dalam memilih hukuman. Hal dapat terlihat dalam perkara Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar[15], di mana alasan khusus (special reason) dalam Pasal 354 KUHAP India haruslah cukup memberikan perlindungan terhadap penjatuhan hukuman keras yang tidak mempunyai batasan pasti. Ketika hukuman yang sangat keras dijatuhkan, maka penting sekali bahwa Hakim harus mampu menunjukan dasar mengenai hukuman apa yang ia pertimbangkan untuk melihat besarnya pembenaran tersebut.

Demikian aspek konstitusionalitas hukuman mati berdasarkan penafsiran Mahkamah Agung terhadap Konstitusi India. Tentunya hal ini tidak bisa secara keseluruhan diterapkan di negara Indonesia, namun beberapa pertimbangannya, hemat saya, dapat dijadikan rujukan bagi para pemangku kepentingan.

***

End Notes:

[1] Pasal 302: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.”
[2] Article 14 Equality before law: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
[3] Article 19 Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc:
“(1) All citizens shall have the right -
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
(3) Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the right conferred by the said sub-clause.
(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.
(5) Nothing in sub-clause (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Schedule Tribe.
(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to, -
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.”
[4] Article 21 Protection of life and personal liberty: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
[5] SIR 1973 SC 947.
[6] AIR 1979 SC 917.
[7] AIR 1980 SC 898.
[8] AIR 1983 SC 947.
[9] Jumman Khan v State of UP AIR 1991 SC 345.
[10] AIR 1982 SC 1325: (1982)3 SCC 24.
[11] AIR 1983 SC 465: (1983)2 SCC 344.
[12] AIR 1989 SC 1335: (1989)1 SCC 678.
[13] AIR 1989 SC 1456.
[14] AIR 1980 SC 898: (1980)2 SCC 684.
[15] AIR 1989 SC 1457.

Daftar Pusataka:

1. Bhat, P. Ishwara, “Fundamental Rights: A Study of Their Interrelationship”, Eastern Law House, New Delhi, 2004.
2. De, D.J., “Interpretation & Enforcement of Fundamental Rights”, Eastern Law House, New Delhi, 2000.
3. Dehsta, Sunil and Kiran Dehsta, “Fundamental Human Rights: The Rights to Life and Personal Liberty”, Deep and Deep Publication Ltd., New Delhi, 2004.
4. Jai, Janak Raj, “Death Penalty”, Regency Publication, New Delhi, 2005.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA

Imposing of death sentence is one thing that always gets more attention to be discussed, including from the view of constitutional validity in each countries. A serious discussion regarding to death sentence in Indonesia, whether it should be continued or abolished, has come up before the Court after some applicant applied a petition to Indonesian Constitutional Court in order to challenge the constitutionality of death penalty in Drugs and Narcotic Act against the provision of Rights to Life on Indonesian Constitution, 1945. This article is the first chapter of several other chapters with the topic of “death penalty” which will be flattened on the following days.

***

The provision of death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder under s. 302, IPC[1] was challenged as constitutionally invalid being violate of Arts. 14,[2] 19[3] and 21[4] of the Constitution in a series of cases. It was contended in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P.[5] that the constitutional validity of death sentence has to be tested with reference to Arts. 14 and 19 besides Art. 21 of the Constitution as the right to life is fundamental to the enjoyment of all these freedoms as contained in Art. 19 of the Constitution.

It was further contended that the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribed the procedure of finding guilt of an accused but regarding the sentence to be awarded under s. 302, IPC the unguided and uncontrolled discretion has been left to the Judge to decide the sentence to be awarded. The Supreme Court held that the death sentence as an alternative punishment under s. 302, IPC is not unreasonable and it is in the public interest and the procedural safeguard provided to the accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not unreasonable leaving the discretion with the judge to sentence an accused, convicted for murder either to death or life imprisonment Death sentence as an alternative punishment for life was held valid.

Though the court did not accept the contention that the validity of the sentence to death has to be tested in the light of Arts. 14 and 10 of the Constitution. But in Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P.[6] the court accepted the proposition that the validity of the death sentence can be tested with reference to Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court suggested that in exceptional circumstances death sentence should be imposed only when public interest, social defence and public order would warrant. Such extreme penalty should be imposed in extreme circumstances. The court in Barchan Singh v. State of Punjab[7] upheld that constitutional validity of death sentence. The court reasoned that penal law does not attract Art. 19(1) of the Constitution. If the impact of the law on nay of the rights under Art. 19(1) is merely incidental, indirect, remote or collateral, Art. 19 would not be available for testing its validity.

Accordingly, the court held that s. 302, IPC for its validity would not require to qualify the test of Art. 19. The procedure provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure for imposing capital punishment for murder cannot be said to be unfair, unreasonable and unjust. But Justice Bhagwati in his dissenting judgment held that s. 302, IPC and s. 354(3), Cr PC violation of Arts. 14 and 21 as these provisions confers unguided power on the court which irrational and arbitrary.

Thus, death sentence should be imposed in the rarest of the rare case. The Supreme Court in Machhi Sing v State of Punjab[8] laid down the broad outlines of the circumstances when death sentence should be imposed. It should be considered whether there is something uncommon about the crime and the compelling circumstances for imposing death sentence after giving maximum weight age of the mitigating circumstances which is favour of the accused.

Jumman Kahn was facing the gallows on being sentenced to death for having brutally raped and strangulated to death a six year old girl named Sakina. The convict challenged the death sentence and its constitutionality.[9] It was argued that death penalty is not only outmoded, unreasonable, cruel and unusual punishment but also defies the dignity of the individual and the issue needs reconsideration which stands like sentinel over human misery, degradation and oppression. The Supreme Court while endorsing its earlier view as to the constitutionality of death sentence held that the failure to impose death sentence is such grave cases here it is a crime against the society, particularly in case of murders with extreme brutality will bring to naught the sentence of death penalty provided by s. 302 of IPC. The only punishment which the convict deserves for having committed the reprehensible and gruesome murder of the innocent child to satisfy his lust is nothing but death as a measure of social necessity and also a means of deterring other potential offenders.

The Supreme Court in earlier case Banchan Singh v. State Punjab[10] upheld the constitutional validity of imposition of death sentence as an alternative to life imprisonment and it was further that it is not violate of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Chief Justice Chandrachud expressing the view of the three Judges of the Supreme Court in Sher Singh v State of Punjab[11] held that death sentence is constitutionally valid and permissible within the constrains of the rule in Bachan Singh (supra). This has to be accepted as the law of the land. The decisions rendered by this court after full debate has to be accepted without mental reservation until they are set aside.

The challenge touching the constitutionality of the death sentence also surfaced in Triveniben v State of Gujarat[12] and in Allauddin’s case[13] and the Supreme Court asserted affirmatively that the Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty.

It is in the rare cases, the legislature in its wisdom, considered it necessary impose the extreme punishment of death to deter others and to protect the society. The choice of sentence is left with the rider that the judge may visit the convict with extreme punishment provided there exist special reasons for doing so. The provision of Art. 302, IPC is consistent with the Constitutional Provision of Art. 21 which enjoins that personal liberty or life of an individual shall not be taken except according to the procedure established by law. Whether death penalty violates Art. 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab[14] and the court answered the contention in the negative.

In the face of the statutory provision in cl. (3) of s. 354 of the Cr. PC requiring giving of special reason while imposing death penalty which is consistent with Art. 21 of the Constitution which enjoins that the personal liberty or life of an individual shall not be taken except according to the procedure established by law, the extreme plea of death in no case cannot be countenanced and death penalty cannot be said to be violate of Art. 21 of the Constitution. Section 302, IPC casts a heavy duty on the court to choose between death sentence and imprisonment for life and court must show high degree of concern and sensitiveness in the choice of sentence. It was held in Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar[15] that special reason in s. 354, Cr. PC should be sufficient safe guard against arbitrary imposition of extreme penalty. Where a sentence of severity is imposed, it is imperative that the Judge should indicate the basis upon which he considered the sentence of that magnitude justified.

***

That is all about the constitutionality aspects of death penalty according to the interpretation of Supreme Court on Indian Constitution. The decisions of Indian Supreme Court that I have discussed above, however, couldn’t be throughout adopted in Indonesia. But, some of its reasoning can be considered as a guidance for any Indonesian stakeholders.

End Notes:

[1] Pasal 302: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.”
[2] Article 14 Equality before law: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
[3] Article 19 Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc:
“(1) All citizens shall have the right -
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
(3) Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the right conferred by the said sub-clause.
(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.
(5) Nothing in sub-clause (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Schedule Tribe.
(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to, -
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.”
[4] Article 21 Protection of life and personal liberty: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
[5] SIR 1973 SC 947.
[6] AIR 1979 SC 917.
[7] AIR 1980 SC 898.
[8] AIR 1983 SC 947.
[9] Jumman Khan v State of UP AIR 1991 SC 345.
[10] AIR 1982 SC 1325: (1982)3 SCC 24.
[11] AIR 1983 SC 465: (1983)2 SCC 344.
[12] AIR 1989 SC 1335: (1989)1 SCC 678.
[13] AIR 1989 SC 1456.
[14]AIR 1980 SC 898: (1980)2 SCC 684.
[15]AIR 1989 SC 1457.

Sources:

1. Bhat, P. Ishwara, “Fundamental Rights: A Study of Their Interrelationship”, Eastern Law House, New Delhi, 2004.
2. De, D.J., “Interpretation & Enforcement of Fundamental Rights”, Eastern Law House, New Delhi, 2000.
3. Dehsta, Sunil and Kiran Dehsta, “Fundamental Human Rights: The Rights to Life and Personal Liberty”, Deep and Deep Publication Ltd., New Delhi, 2004.
4. Jai, Janak Raj, “Death Penalty”, Regency Publication, New Delhi, 2005.