1983 (4) TMI 298 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in light of Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. The rationale behind the mandatory death sentence under Section 303.
3. Judicial discretion and fairness in sentencing.
4. The classification of offenders under Section 303 and its reasonableness.
5. The impact of Section 303 on procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Summary:

1. Constitutionality of Section 303 of the IPC:
The primary issue is whether Section 303 of the IPC infringes Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

2. The rationale behind the mandatory death sentence under Section 303:
Section 303 mandates a death sentence for any person who commits murder while serving a life sentence. The rationale was that if life imprisonment did not deter the convict from committing murder, only death could serve as an adequate punishment. This reflected the deterrent and retributive theories of punishment prevalent at the time of its enactment.

3. Judicial discretion and fairness in sentencing:
The Court highlighted the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing, as emphasized in Bachan Singh (1980CriLJ636), which upheld the death penalty only in "the rarest of rare cases." Section 303, by mandating a death sentence without considering the circumstances, removes judicial discretion, making it unfair and unjust.

4. The classification of offenders under Section 303 and its reasonableness:
The Court questioned the rationale behind treating life convicts who commit murder differently from others who commit murder. It found no valid basis for such a classification, deeming it arbitrary and lacking a nexus with the statute's objective. The Court illustrated how mitigating factors should be considered, even for life convicts, to ensure just sentencing.

5. The impact of Section 303 on procedural safeguards under the CrPC:
Section 303's mandatory death sentence deprives the accused of the opportunity to be heard on the question of sentence (u/s 235(2) CrPC) and the requirement for the court to state special reasons for imposing the death sentence (u/s 354(3) CrPC). This deprivation of procedural safeguards is harsh and arbitrary.

Judgment:
The Court concluded that Section 303 of the IPC violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It was struck down as unconstitutional, and all cases of murder will now fall under Section 302 of the IPC, which allows for judicial discretion in sentencing. The various cases in this batch of appeals and writ petitions were directed to be placed before a Division Bench for disposal on merits in light of this judgment.

Separate Judgment by O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.:
Justice Reddy concurred, emphasizing that Section 303 is out of tune with modern jurisprudence and the philosophy of an enlightened Constitution. He reiterated that the exclusion of judicial discretion makes Section 303 arbitrary and oppressive, thus unconstitutional.