Author: Lakshmi S, Student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.
FACTS
The appellant was charged and tried for the offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC[1] by the court of Sessions and he was convicted with a sentence of the death penalty as per section 353(3)[2] of CrPC. He appealed before High Court of Punjab, where the appeal was dismissed and confirmed the Trial Court’s sentence. The appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court by a way of Special Leave Petition on the following grounds: Section 302 of IPC[3] is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the appellant under Articles 19(1)[4] and 21[5] of the Indian Constitution, and whether the facts of the case were falling under special reasons to award death sentence as per section 354(3) of CrPC[6].
ISSUES INVOLVED
- Whether Section 302 of IPC[7] is unconstitutional?
- Whether the case of the appellant falls under the special reasons as per Section 354(3) [8]of CrPC?
RULES
- Section 302 of IPC:
“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”[9]
- Section 354(3) of CrPC:
“354. Language and contents of judgment –
(3) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence.”[10]
- Article 19 of Constitution of India:
“Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) omitted
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence
(3) Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause
(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause
(5) Nothing in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing,” “reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise”[11]
- Article 21 of Constitution of India:
“Protection of life and personal liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”[12]
ANALYSIS
The present case suggested that death sentences had to be limited to and entrusted to the “rarest of the rare cases”. Mainly, the death penalty is like an exception, rather than a rule. The case has granted the landmark judgement that life imprisonment must be the law and the death penalty must be treated as an exception, but it has failed to determine the requirements for the “rarest of the rare cases”. The bench had two viewpoints in the case, where the majority view validated Section 302[13] of IPC and 354(3) of CrPC[14] on the touchstone of constitutionality.
Unlike the later 1983 decision of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab[15], the present case fails to lay down the criteria for the application of the “rarest of the rare cases” rule to specific cases.
Death penalty or capital punishment has been a debate continuing for more than a century. People who defend the ideology claims that the death penalty causes fear in would-be criminals and protects the safety and welfare of the citizens from murderers. The opposing side claims that murders or not, a human killing another human irrational and barbaric, and the murderer should be given opportunities for reformation. I support this viewpoint. If the judiciary itself is taking away the life of a human being it is supposed to protect, the boundary between a murderer and the constitution-approved judiciary becomes blurred. The success rate of reformation methods has been verified by various Scandinavian countries. Upon critical analysis, the Bachan Singh case[16] holds a neutral and somewhat dubious stand in the death penalty debate.
CONCLUSION
In relation to the issue of constitutional validity, the Supreme Court bench disapproved the validity of Section 302 of IPC[17], with 4:1 ratio of approval from the Supreme Court bench. The challenges pertaining to Section 354(3) of CrPC[18] were also dismissed. It was made very clear by the Court that Articles 19(2)[19] and 19(6)[20] therefore, in effect, specifically provided for by a power of the State to place fair limitations on the enforcement of civil rights. Life imprisonment was made a rule and the death sentence was made an exception for the people convicted for the offence of murder. The Court struck down Section 302 of IPC[21] as unconstitutional and void with a majority ratio of 4:1.
REFERENCES
[1] “Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302”
[2] “The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 353(3)”
[3] “Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302”
[4] “The Constitution of India 1949, Article 19 (1)”
[5] “The Constitution of India 1949, Article 21”
[6] “The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 354(3) ”
[7] “Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302”
[8] “The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 354(3) ”
[9] “Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302”
[10] “The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 354(3) ”
[11] “The Constitution of India 1949, Article 19”
[12] “The Constitution of India 1949, Article 21”
[13] “Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302”
[14] “The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 354(3) ”
[15] “Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 AIR 957 : 1983 SCR (3) 413”
[16] “Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898”
[17] “Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302”
[18] “The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 354(3) ”
[19] “The Constitution of India 1949, Article 19(2) ”
[20] “The Constitution of India 1949, Article 19(6) ”
[21] “Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302”