In 2025, Sessions Courts sentenced ten women to death, the highest number of female death penalty convictions recorded since 2016. In the same period, 118 men were handed capital punishment, according to the Square Circle Clinic’s The Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report.
The latest NALSAR Square Circle Clinic (2025) report shows that the Supreme Court recorded ten death-row acquittals last year—the highest in a decade. In the past ten years, 1,279 individuals have been sentenced to death. However, 2025 marked the third consecutive year in which the Supreme Court did not confirm a single death sentence.
The year also saw the highest number of acquittals since 2016, with ten persons acquitted by the apex court out of the 153 death sentences it adjudicated. Of these 153 cases, there were acquittals in 26 cases. The highest proportion of acquittals—56.76 percent—were in cases involving murder with sexual offences, followed by 29.72 percent in cases of murder alone.
Over the last year, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in more than 50 percent of cases involving heinous crimes such as murder or murder combined with sexual offences. In a broader context, the report reveals that acquittal rates in High Courts were four times higher than their confirmation rates in death penalty cases. At the Supreme Court level, acquittals were twice as frequent as confirmations.
Even intense public and political pressure, along with widespread media coverage of the most heinous crimes, has failed to move the apex court towards endorsing capital punishment. Following widespread protests after the August 2024 rape and murder of a medical professional at Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College And Hospital, there were demands for death penalty for the accused. The West Bengal government subsequently passed the Aparajita Woman and Child (West Bengal Criminal Laws Amendment) Bill, 2024—currently awaiting presidential assent—which mandates death penalty for rape resulting in death or a vegetative state, despite such mandatory sentencing being unconstitutional.
However, the Sealdah Sessions Court sentenced the convict, Sanjay Roy, to life imprisonment rather than death. The Court held that the case did not meet the stringent “rarest of the rare” criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, which requires a careful balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing the death penalty.
On the same day, in Kerala’s Neyyattinkara Additional District Sessions Court, Greeshma—convicted of murdering her partner—was sentenced to death. The judgment observed that “the balance of justice tilts in favour of the proved aggravating circumstances.”
The data suggests a growing disconnect between sessions courts and appellate courts, raising serious questions about fairness, evidentiary standards, and sentencing practices in capital cases. Indian courts have increasingly shown reluctance to enforce death penalty due to the strict application of the “rarest of the rare” doctrine, which mandates capital punishment only when life imprisonment is deemed wholly inadequate.
This judicial approach is rooted in concerns for human rights, the possibility of reform, and the irreversible risk of wrongful convictions. The doctrine itself was established in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980), requiring courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors—often resulting in a preference for life imprisonment.
Several other factors also influence judicial hesitation:
• Article 21 of the Constitution has been interpreted to emphasise that state-sponsored killing is dehumanising, encouraging sentencing that prioritises rehabilitation. In Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India, the Supreme Court commuted several death sentences on the ground that inordinate delay in execution violated the constitutional right to life.
• High reversal rates by appellate courts point to flawed investigations, inadequate legal representation for marginalised accused, and hurried trials.
• Trial courts are often seen to impose death sentences mechanically, prompting higher courts to exercise greater caution.
• Prolonged delays in appeals and mercy petitions have been held to constitute mental torture, providing grounds for commutation.
• A majority of death row prisoners come from economically vulnerable backgrounds, raising concerns about disproportionate application of capital punishment.
In Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court elaborated on the “rarest of the rare” doctrine, identifying factors such as extreme brutality, victim vulnerability, and lack of remorse. In more recent years, however, the judiciary has increasingly favoured commutation over execution. Judicial opinion has reinforced the view that prolonged delay itself amounts to mental torture, underscoring the shrinking space for capital punishment.
Records show that the death penalty—or the issuance of the Black Warrant—has been used sparingly. The number of executions remains small compared to those languishing on death row.
• On March 20, 2020, the four adult perpetrators of the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape and murder—Mukesh Singh, Akshay Thakur Vinay Sharma, and Pawan Gupta—were hanged at Tihar Jail after a prolonged legal process. One accused, Ram Singh, died in custody, while the juvenile offender, Mohammed Afroz, was sentenced to three years in a reform facility under the Juvenile Justice Act. Reports later indicated he was employed as a cook at an undisclosed location.
• Yakub Memon, convicted in the 1993 Bombay bombings, was executed on July 30, 2015 in Nagpur Central Jail.
• Afzal Guru was executed on February 9, 2013, at Tihar Jail for his role in the Parliament attack, a decision that sparked controversy, particularly in Kashmir.
• Ajmal Kasab was executed on November 21, 2012, at Yerwada Central Prison for his role in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
• Dhananjoy Chatterjee was hanged in 2004 for the rape and murder of 18-year-old Hetal Parekh.
• Kamta Prasad Tiwary was executed in 1997 for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
• Auto Shankar was hanged in 1995 for multiple murders in Tamil Nadu.
These remain isolated instances. Overall, the death penalty has been used sparingly. In 2019, the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha to replace capital punishment with life imprisonment. The Bill was rejected, with most MPs arguing that India still required the death penalty for terrorism, brutal murders, and crimes against women and children.
What remains deeply contentious, however, is the disproportionate impact of capital punishment on the economically weak and legally underrepresented.
The Supreme Court’s approach mirrors global trends. Over 110 countries have abolished the death penalty, with nearly 77 percent of nations no longer carrying out executions. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolishing capital punishment, has been adopted by most countries—India and the United States being notable exceptions.
Worldwide, the death penalty is increasingly framed as a human rights issue, given its irreversible nature and the risk of wrongful convictions. European jurisdictions have largely abolished it, viewing capital punishment as incompatible with human dignity. Inconsistent application, prolonged mental anguish on death row, and the possibility of error have steadily eroded the justification for the death penalty. While some countries retain it with procedural safeguards, the global drift towards abolition suggests that capital punishment itself may be edging towards extinction.
—The writer is former Senior Managing Editor, India Legal magazine
The post Reluctant to Hang appeared first on India Legal.