Introduction

The case dealt with the constitutional validity of Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Now Section 104 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023), which prescribes a mandatory death sentence for anyone who, being under a sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case marked a pivotal moment in the history of Indian criminal law by declaring Section 303 as unconstitutional. The Court held that the provision was arbitrary and violated the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This case effectively overturned the mandatory death sentence prescribed under Section 303 IPC, setting a new precedent for sentencing in murder cases.

Facts

Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Now Section 104 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023) stated that "Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder, shall be punished with death."

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of this provision, arguing that it violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.The petitioners contended that the mandatory imposition of the death sentence for life convicts committing murder was arbitrary and did not allow for the consideration of mitigating factors or circumstances.

The 42nd Law Commission Report had noted that the provision was enacted primarily to protect prison staff from potential threats by convicts serving life sentences.

The main question revolved around whether the mandatory nature of Section 303 (Now Section 104 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023) violated the fundamental rights of prisoners, particularly the right to a fair trial and the right to life.

You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]

Issues

1. Whether Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (Now Section 104 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023) infringes the guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the provision of a mandatory death sentence for a life convict committing murder is unconstitutional due to its arbitrariness and lack of safeguards.
3. Whether the absence of judicial discretion in sentencing violates the principles of justice and fairness enshrined in the Constitution.

Contention of Petitioner

The petitioners argued that Section 303 IPC (Now Section 104 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023) violated the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The mandatory imposition of the death penalty without considering the circumstances of the crime or the convict’s background was arbitrary and unjust.The petitioners contended that by making the death penalty mandatory, Section 303 denied the judiciary the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances, such as the convict’s mental state, personal history, or the nature of the crime. The Court could not exercise its discretion to impose a life sentence, which rendered the provision unconstitutional.

The petitioners also argued that Section 303 lacked the necessary safeguards provided under Section 235(2) (Now Section 258 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023) and Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) (Now Section 393 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023). Section 235(2) (Now Section 258 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023) mandates that the accused be heard on the question of sentencing, and Section 354(3) (CrPC) (Now Section 393 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023) requires the court to record reasons for imposing the death penalty. In cases under Section 303(Now Section 104 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023)  , where the death sentence was mandatory, these provisions became meaningless.

Contention of Respondent

The respondents (State of Punjab) argued that Section 303 IPC was constitutionally valid. They referred to the decision in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), which upheld the constitutional validity of death penalty provisions under Section 302 of the IPC, where death was an alternative sentence. They contended that Section 303 was an exception to the general rule and did not violate the Constitution.

The respondents further argued that the provision served a practical purpose by deterring life convicts from committing murder within prisons, thus ensuring the safety of prison staff and maintaining law and order within correctional facilities.

The respondents also pointed out that earlier rulings had upheld provisions allowing the death penalty in certain cases, and therefore, Section 303 was not unconstitutional.

Court’s Analysis

The Court drew a distinction between Section 303 and Section 302 of the IPC. Section 302 provides for the death penalty as an alternative to life imprisonment, whereas Section 303 mandates the death penalty in cases where a life convict commits murder. The Court noted that in the case of Section 303, the judge had no discretion to impose anything other than the death sentence.

The Court highlighted that Section 303’s mandatory nature violated the principles of justice and fairness inherent in Article 21. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be taken away without a fair and just procedure, and the mandatory death penalty eliminated judicial discretion, which was a crucial part of a fair trial.

The Court pointed out that Section 235(2) of the CrPC guarantees the right of the accused to be heard on the question of sentence. Similarly, Section 354(3) requires that reasons for imposing the death sentence be recorded. In the case of Section 303, these procedural safeguards were rendered meaningless since the death penalty was mandatory.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in this landmark judgment, struck down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. The Court concluded that the imposition of a mandatory death penalty, without considering individual circumstances, was harsh, arbitrary, and unjust. It violated the constitutional safeguards provided to the accused and led to unjust outcomes.

The Court emphasized that the death penalty should be imposed only after careful consideration of the facts, circumstances, and mitigating factors of each case.