2015 (8) TMI 1508 - SC - Indian Laws

Death sentence awarded to the Petitioner by the trial court - Constitutional Validity of Section 364A inserted in the Indian Penal Code by Act 42 of 1993 - ultra vires the Constitution to the extent the same prescribes death sentence for anyone found guilty - HELD THAT - The need to bring in Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code arose initially because of the increasing incidence of kidnapping and abduction for ransom. This is evident from the recommendations made by the Law Commission to which we have made reference in the earlier part of this judgment. While those recommendations were pending with the government, the specter of terrorism started raising its head threatening not only the security and safety of the citizens but the very sovereignty and integrity of the country, calling for adequate measures to curb what has the potential of destabilizing any country. With terrorism assuming international dimensions, the need to further amend the law arose, resulting in the amendment to Section 364A, in the year 1994. The gradual growth of the challenges posed by kidnapping and abductions for ransom, not only by ordinary criminals for monetary gain or as an organized activity for economic gains but by terrorist organizations is what necessitated the incorporation of Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code and a stringent punishment for those indulging in such activities. Given the background in which the law was enacted and the concern shown by the Parliament for the safety and security of the citizens and the unity, sovereignty and integrity of the country, the punishment prescribed for those committing any act contrary to Section 364A cannot be dubbed as so outrageously disproportionate to the nature of the offence as to call for the same being declared unconstitutional. Judicial discretion available to the Courts to choose one of the two sentences prescribed for those falling foul of Section 364A will doubtless be exercised by the Courts along judicially recognized lines and death sentences awarded only in the rarest of rare cases. But just because the sentence of death is a possible punishment that may be awarded in appropriate cases cannot make it per se inhuman or barbaric. In the ordinary course and in cases which qualify to be called rarest of the rare, death may be awarded only where kidnapping or abduction has resulted in the death either of the victim or anyone else in the course of the commission of the offence. All that we are concerned with is whether the provisions of Section 364A in so far as the same prescribes death or life imprisonment is unconstitutional on account of the punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of the crime committed by the Appellants. Our answer to that question is in the negative. A sentence of death in a case of murder may be rare, but, if the courts have, upon consideration of the facts and evidence, found that the same is the only sentence that can be awarded, it is difficult to revisit that question in collateral proceedings like the one at hand. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 364A IPC prescribing death penalty.
2. Applicability of Section 364A IPC to private ransom cases.
3. Judicial discretion in sentencing under Section 364A IPC.
4. Proportionality of the death penalty under Section 364A IPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 364A IPC prescribing death penalty:

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of Section 364A IPC, arguing that prescribing the death penalty for kidnapping for ransom is ultra vires the Constitution. They contended that the provision should be struck down as it denies judicial discretion in sentencing, similar to the rationale in Mithu v. State of Punjab where Section 303 IPC was struck down. The court, however, distinguished Mithu's case, noting that Section 364A IPC provides alternative sentences (death or life imprisonment), thus preserving judicial discretion. The court emphasized that legislative wisdom in prescribing punishments must be respected unless the punishment is outrageously disproportionate or inhuman. The court concluded that Section 364A IPC's stringent punishment is justified given the gravity of the offence and the menace of kidnapping for ransom, and therefore, it is not unconstitutional.

2. Applicability of Section 364A IPC to private ransom cases:

The appellants argued that Section 364A IPC should apply only to cases involving kidnapping by terrorists or for coercing the government or international organizations, not private individuals. The court rejected this argument, stating that the provision's language is broad enough to cover kidnappings for ransom by any person, including private individuals. The court referred to the historical context and legislative intent, noting that the provision was introduced to address the increasing incidence of kidnapping for ransom, which had become a lucrative industry. The inclusion of "any other person" in the provision indicates its applicability to private ransom cases, not limited to acts of terrorism.

3. Judicial discretion in sentencing under Section 364A IPC:

The appellants contended that Section 364A IPC is unconstitutional as it denies courts the discretion to award a sentence other than death or life imprisonment. The court clarified that the provision does not mandate a death sentence but provides judicial discretion to choose between death and life imprisonment. The court emphasized that the discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. The court upheld the validity of Section 364A IPC, noting that it allows for judicial discretion and is not arbitrary or unreasonable.

4. Proportionality of the death penalty under Section 364A IPC:

The appellants argued that the death penalty under Section 364A IPC is disproportionate to the offence and violates the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court examined the proportionality principle, noting that punishments must be proportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence. The court referred to international and domestic jurisprudence, emphasizing that while courts must respect legislative wisdom, they can interfere if the punishment is outrageously disproportionate. The court concluded that the death penalty under Section 364A IPC is not disproportionate, given the heinous nature of kidnapping for ransom, which often results in the victim's death. The court upheld the death penalty in this case, considering it a "rarest of rare" scenario warranting the extreme punishment.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality and applicability of Section 364A IPC, affirming the death penalty awarded to the appellants for kidnapping and murdering the victim for ransom. The court emphasized the legislative intent to address the grave menace of kidnapping for ransom and the necessity of stringent punishment to deter such crimes. The court also highlighted the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the principle of proportionality in criminal jurisprudence.

← Previous Next →