Mithu vs State of Punjab
AIR 1983 SC 473
Case Summary
[Punishment for Murder by Life-Convict]
Facts
Mithu Singh, serving a life sentence for a previous crime, committed murder while under the sentence of life imprisonment.
Under Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), individuals serving a life sentence who commit murder are automatically sentenced to death.
Mithu Singh challenged the constitutionality of Section 303, IPC, arguing that it violated Articles 14 (Equality before law) and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.
The State of Punjab defended the provision, asserting that the mandatory death penalty under Section 303 was justified as a deterrent and consistent with the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, where the death penalty was upheld in rare cases.
Issues
Whether Section 303 of the IPC, prescribing a mandatory death sentence for life convicts committing murder, violates Article 14 (Equality) of the Indian Constitution.
Whether Section 303 violates Article 21, particularly the requirement for a fair, just, and reasonable procedure for depriving life.
Key Legal Provisions
Section 303, IPC: Mandatory death penalty for individuals committing murder while serving a life sentence.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution: Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary discrimination.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Protects life and personal liberty except by procedure established by law.
Sections 235(2) & 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
Section 235(2): Right of the accused to present mitigating factors before sentencing.
Section 354(3): Requirement for judges to state special reasons for imposing the death penalty.
Judgement
The Supreme Court of India struck down Section 303, IPC, declaring it unconstitutional and void. The key observations were:
Violation of Article 14:
Section 303 creates an arbitrary classification by mandating a death sentence for life convicts committing murder while allowing judicial discretion for others committing the same offense.
There is no rational nexus between the classification (life convicts vs. others) and the object of the law (punishing murder), as the motives for murder can vary regardless of the offender's incarceration status.
Violation of Article 21:
By prescribing a mandatory death penalty, Section 303 denies the convict the right to present mitigating circumstances (e.g., provocation, age, or motive).
It eliminates judicial discretion, thus violating the principle of fairness and justice required under Article 21.
It contravenes the requirement under Section 354(3), CrPC, to record "special reasons" for imposing the death penalty.
Inequity in Sentencing:
Imposing a standardized penalty of death ignores individual circumstances and violates the principles of natural justice.
Life convicts are already subject to severe stresses and should not face harsher treatment solely because they are incarcerated.
Unjustifiable Harshness:
The mandatory nature of Section 303, IPC, disregards mitigating factors, including those relevant to the circumstances of the crime or the offender's mental state
Comments