Death Sentence Generally–
The question of the desirability of death sentence is presently a subject of extensive international debate. There are strong arguments from both sides of the fence. Those who are in favour of retaining this age old sentence believe that this prove greater protection to the society as it acts as a more effective general deterrent conveying signal to others that they would face the same eventuality should they dare committing death penalty attracting crimes and also that this form of incapacitation is a desirable form of retribution in more gruesome and frenzied cases.
Those, who, speak from the other side of the wall, assert that death sentence is an archaic, old fashioned device which has out runned its span, that it is an inhuman and cruel system which can not survive in the present days, that one wrong can not be quelled by another one.
Advent of the 20th century marked an upsurge in the demand for its abolition, terming it inconducive to human dignity and that it does not reduce crimes. Abolitionists’ view is often more ethical than legal and it would be wrong to say that their view was or has been universally endorsed. Strongest argument of the abolitionist is based on the theme that once executed, the sentence is irreversible. Death Sentence is no doubt mecaburous but as Tanzanian Court of Appeal in Mbusvv-V- The Republic (30th January, 1955), quite aptly observed that the mandatory death penalty; while cruel and degrading, was none the less constitutional: it was a reasonable and necessary measure to protect the right to life of law abiding citizens.
The fact that good number of countries could not be persuaded to swing to the abolitionists club vindicate the claim that it is not generally accepted that death penalty experiment has failed. Some 58 countries have still remained in the retentionist enclave while 35 others, though have been maintaining moratorium on death penalty, do in law, retain death sentence (Penal Reform International: 2014). In fact Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Srilanka have restored death sentence, turning around previously imposed moratorium for cogent reasons. Philippines suspended it twice since 1987.
One of the abiding arguments against the death sentence is the fallibility of the human justice which may result in the execution of people innocent.
Though all West European countries along with the old Commonwealth have abolished capital punishment, it still reigns unhindered in many countries with proven success in reducing crime levels . 32 of the 50 component states of the United States of America are in the list of the retentionists. Staticts reveal that in those of US States where death sentence are prevalent, major crimes are relatively less frequent.
Malaysia, which has attained an acclaimed sophistication in the progression of democratic order, prescribes mandatory death sentence for murder and drug offences. Most of the far eastern democracies, inclusive of Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand maintain death sentence for drug peddling. Middle east countries, inclusive of Iran, do not only retain capital punishment, but practice it day in, day out. Although the United Kingdom had abolished death sentence generally, ostensibly after subsequently emerged evidence showing that some executed people were actually innocent, death sentence for certain very limited offences involving the monarch and the kingdom, are still in its book.
While there can be no qualm on the theological doctrine that taking of life is within the exclusive and unfettered domain of the Creator, yet if we meticulously follow the creator’s Oracles, it become obvious that the Creator allowed the human being to pass death sentence on those guilty of repulsive felonies. With the sole exception of Budhism, all major religions endorse capital sentence for described offences. (Paras:972-982); .....Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Criminal), 2017 (1)- [2 LM (AD) 76] ....View Full Judgment

Sentence of death–
The appellant is a threat to law and order and a menace to society. He would do away with anyone, who stands for upholding law and order. In view of the way the victim was murdered, we do not find that the sentence of death is at all disproportionate to the crime alleged. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgement and order of the High Court Division confirming the sentence of death. .....Kamal alias Exol Kamal =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 369] ....View Full Judgment

Commute the sentence of death–
The appellant Alam Sheikh of Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2012 has been in condemned-cell since 22.02.2005, that is, more than 11 years. The P.C. and P.R. of the appellant Alam Sheikh are nil and as such, he was not a habitual offender. Considering all aspects of the case, we are inclined to commute the sentence of death of imprisonment for life. .....Salim =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 595] ....View Full Judgment

Commuted death sentences to imprisonment for life–
Druto Bichar Tribunal Case No.22 of 2005 convicting the accused -respondents herein and others under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and sentencing them there under to death. The High Court Division reason commuted their death sentences to imprisonment for life. The High Court Division has clearly stated the reason of commuting the death sentences to imprisonment for life. The High Court Division has stated to the effect that since the age of the appellants (the convicted respondents herein) were not that much and they had just attained the age of majority they (the learned Judges) found it justified to commute the sentences of death to imprisonment for life. We find no reason to interfere with the above observation and decision of the High Court Division. .....The State =VS= Saifullah Al-Mahmood Tanvir & others, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 501] ....View Full Judgment