UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE BY LEGISLATION THE PROVISION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE ARE REVIEWED FROM THE EARLY 1930'S TO 1971. INDIAN PROPONENTS OF THE ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT NEXT DIRECTED THEIR EFFORTS PRIMARILY TOWARD THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, WHICH HOWEVER, REJECTED IN 1972 THE ABOLITIONISTS' ARGUMENTS. IN EFFECT, THE COURT REDUCED THE ISSUE TO ONE OF WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WAS REASONABLE IN ITS CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENT THAT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT DEPRIVES INDIVIDUALS OF ESSENTIAL FREEDOMS. THE POSSIBILITY OF INVALIDATION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT THROUGH THE ROUTE OF THE LAWYER'S TECHNIQUE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION WAS EXEMPLIFIED IN THE CASE OF EDIGA ANAMMA V. STATE OF ANDHRA (1974), WHICH IS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH. FOUR DISTINCT LEGAL DEVICES USED IN JUSTIFYING LIFE IMPRISONMENT RATHER THAN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER ARE DISCUSSED. IT IS NOTED THAT, ASIDE FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRECEDENT IN A FEW CASES TO EQUALLY CONSIDER THE SENTENCES OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER, NO CLEAR SUBSEQUENT PATTERNS HAVE EMERGED. HOWEVER, AN ANALYSIS OF 70 CASES FOLLOWING THE EDIGA ANAMMA CASE, WHICH ARE PRESENTED IN AN EXTENSIVE APPENDIX, INDICATE THAT TRIAL JUDGES--AND STATE HIGH COURTS--MAY BE OPTING MORE FREQUENTLY FOR LIFE IMPRISONMENT. AN APPENDIX, TABLES, AND FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED.