LexMITHU, ETC., ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
D
E
F
G
H
690
MITHU, ETC., ETC.,
STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. ETC.
April 7, 1983.
[V.Y. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI,
V.D. TuLZAPURKAR, 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.)
Indian Penal Code, 1860-s. 303-Constitution of India-Arts. 14 and 21-
Mandatory sentence of death for murder commilleed by Jife-con~·icts is violative
of rights guaranteed under Arts, 14 and 21-s. 303, l.P.C. is unconstitutional and
void
Section 303, I.P.C. provides that whoever, being under sentence of
imprison1nent for life, commits murder, sha II be punished with death
CounseJ for appeallants/petitioners
contend~d that s. 303, J.P.C. is
unconstitutional not only for the rea~on that it is unreasonable and arbitrary
but also because it authorises deprivation of life by an unju1t and unfair
procedure. Counsel for re pendents on the other hand contended that since
the validity of death sentence has bee-n upheld in Bachan Singh and since s. 303
does no more than prescribe death "Sentence for the offence of n1urder, the
ratio of Bacftan Singh should apply and the question as regards the validity of
s. 303, I.P.C. must be treated as having been concluded by that decision.
Upholding the contention of the appellants/petitioners,
HELD:
Per Chandrachud,
C.J. (Chinnappa Reddy, J Concurring)
Section 303, I.P.C. is unconstitutional and void.
It violates the guarantee of
equality contained in Art. 14 as also the right conferred by Art. 21 that no
perSon shall te deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law. [712-A; 711-E]
(i) There is no rational justification for making a distinction in the matter
of punishn1ent between persons who commit murders whilst they are under the
sentence of life imprisonment and persons who commit murders whilst they are
not under the sentence of life imprisonment. Further, no r3tional distinction
can be n1ade in the matter of sentencing between a person who commits
murder after serving cut the sentence of life imprisonment and a persori who
co;nmits murder while he is still under that sentence. A person. who stands
unreformed after a long term of incarceration is not, by any logic, entitled to
perferential treatment as compared with a person who is still under the sentence
of life imprisonment. The classification based upon such a distinction proceeds
upon irrelevant considerations and bears no nexus with the object of the
statute, namely, the imposition of a mandatory sentence of death.
[70 C-D; 704 H; 705 B·Dl
...
,
MlfHU V. PIJNJAli
691
(ii) Murders are, by and large, committed for any one or more of a
variety of motives which operate on the mind of the offender, whether he is
under a sentence of life imprisonment or not. Such motives are too numerous
and varied to enumerate but hate, lust, sex, jealou~y. gain, revenge and a host
of weaknesses to which human flesh is subject, are comrr:on n1othes for the
· generality of murders. Those reasons can operate as a motive fc rce of the
crime whatever may be the situation in which tl-.e criminal is placed and
whatever may be the environment in which
1he finds himself. (702 D-F]
(iii) Even limiting oneself to murders committed bY life-convicts within
the four walls of the jail or while they are on parole or on lail, it is difficult to
hold that the prescription of tl-.e 1nandatory sentence of death answers the test
of reasonableness. Thr circumstance that a person is undergoing a ~entence of
life in1prisonment does not minimise the importance of 1nitigating factors which
are relevant on the question of sentt'nce· which s.hou1d be in1pos~d for the
offence committed by him v.hile he is under the sentence of life imprisonment.
Indeed, a crin1e com1nitted by a convict witJ1in the jail while he is under the
sentence of life imprisonment may, in certain circumstances, demand and
deserve greater consideration, understanding and sympathy than the original
offence for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. {703 F·G; 702·H;
703 A-Bl
(iv) Convicts who are sentenced to long terms of imprisonment like the -
sentence of life imprisonment are subject to extraordinary stresses and strains
and they should not be discriminated against as compared with others. There
is no justification for prescribing a mandatory sentence of death for the offence
of murder committed :nside or outside the prison by a person who is under
the sentence of life 1mprisonn1ent. Research &tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.