Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1980 (5) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the death penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Constitutional validity of the sentencing procedure under Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutional Validity of the Death Penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code Background and Legislative History: - The Indian Penal Code (IPC), enacted in 1860, prescribes death as a punishment for certain offenses, including murder (Section 302). - The Law Commission's 35th Report (1967) recommended retaining the death penalty, considering India's socio-economic conditions and the necessity to maintain law and order. Arguments Against Death Penalty: - The death penalty is irreversible and can lead to the execution of innocent individuals. - It serves no proven penological purpose, as its deterrent effect remains unproven. - Retribution is no longer an acceptable end of punishment, and reformation and rehabilitation should be the primary purposes of punishment. - Execution is a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. Judicial Reasoning: - The Court acknowledged that the death penalty is irreversible but emphasized that adequate safeguards in the judicial system minimize the risk of wrongful execution. - The deterrent effect of the death penalty is supported by a significant segment of the population, including distinguished jurists and judges. - The Court cited various judgments and opinions recognizing the deterrent and retributive value of the death penalty. - The legislative policy now indicates that life imprisonment is the rule, and the death penalty is an exception, to be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases. Conclusion: - The Court concluded that Section 302 of the IPC does not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The provision is reasonable and in the public interest, considering the prevailing crime conditions and the legislative policy. 2. Constitutional Validity of the Sentencing Procedure under Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Legislative Background: - Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973, marks a shift in legislative policy, making life imprisonment the rule and the death penalty an exception. - The provision requires the Court to state "special reasons" for awarding the death sentence. Arguments Against Section 354(3): - The provision delegates legislative duty to the Court to legislate "special reasons" for imposing the death penalty. - It allows arbitrary and whimsical imposition of the death penalty without clear guidelines. Judicial Reasoning: - The Court emphasized that the discretion to impose the death penalty is to be exercised judicially, considering all aggravating and mitigating circumstances. - The legislative policy is clear that the death penalty should be imposed only in extreme cases. - The Court rejected the argument that the provision allows arbitrary imposition of the death penalty, noting that judicial discretion is exercised based on well-recognized principles and subject to correction by superior courts. Guidelines for Imposing Death Penalty: - The Court provided broad guidelines for imposing the death penalty, emphasizing that it should be reserved for cases of extreme culpability. - Aggravating circumstances include pre-planned, cold-blooded murders, murders involving extreme brutality, and murders of public servants on duty. - Mitigating circumstances include the age of the accused, the probability of reformation, and mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the offense. Conclusion: - The Court held that Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973, does not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The provision provides adequate guidelines for judicial discretion in sentencing. Separate Judgment (Minority View): Bhagwati, J.: - Justice Bhagwati dissented, holding that Section 302 of the IPC, in so far as it provides for the death penalty, is unconstitutional and void as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. - He argued that the provision lacks legislative guidelines for when life should be extinguished by death sentence. - Justice Bhagwati's detailed reasons were to be provided after the Court's summer vacation. Order: - The majority opinion rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of Sections 302 of the IPC and 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973. - The writ petitions and connected matters were to be heard on their individual merits in light of the principles enunciated in the majority judgment.
|