Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to the constitutional validity of Section 303 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 
• This bench delivering the judgment comprised of Justice YV Chandrachud, Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali, Justice VD Tulzapurkar, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and Justice A Varadarajan  

Facts 

• The case revolves around the validity of Section 303 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• Section 303 of IPC provides “ Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder, shall be punished with death.” 
• The 42nd Report of the Law Commission observed that "the primary object of making the death sentence mandatory for an offence under this section seems to be to give protection to the prison staff". 
• The sum and substance of the argument is that the provision contained in section 303 is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and thereby, it violates Article 21 of the Constitution which affords the guarantee that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by Law. 
• Counsel for the respondents rely upon the decision in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) in support of their submission that the provision contained in section 303 does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.

Issues Involved

• Whether Section 303 of IPC infringes the guarantee contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI)? 

Observation

• The Court observed that in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) the Court did not deal with the question whether it is permissible to provide death sentence rather the question was whether Section 302 of IPC which provides for death sentence as an alternative sentence is valid.  
• The three main reasons why the majority in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) concluded that Section 302 of IPC is unconstitutional are: 
  • Firstly, that the death sentence provided for by section 302 is an alternative to the sentence of life imprisonment. 
  • Secondly, that special reasons have to be stated if the normal rule is departed from and the death sentence has to be imposed. 
  • Thirdly, because the accused is entitled, under section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to be heard on the question of sentence. 
• If the law provides a mandatory sentence of death as section 303 of the Penal Code does, neither section 235(2) nor section 354(3) of the CrPC can possibly come into play. 
• If the Court has no option save to impose the sentence of death, it is meaningless to hear the accused on the question of sentence and it becomes superfluous to state the reasons for imposing the sentence of death. 
• The Court made distinction between Section 303 of IPC and Section 302 of IPC as follows: 
  • Section 302 provides for the sentence of death as alternative sentence, the only sentence which section 303 prescribes is the sentence of death. The Court has no option under section 303 to impose any other sentence, no matter what is the motivation of the crime and the circumstances in which it was committed.  
  • Secondly, section 354(3) of the CrPC applies in terms to those cases only wherein "the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years". Since section 303 does not provide for an alternative sentence, section 354(3) has no application to cases arising under that section.  
  • Thirdly, section 235(2) of the CrPC which confers a right upon the accused to be heard on the question of sentence, becomes, a meaningless ritual in cases arising under section 303. If the Court itself has no option to pass any sentence except the sentence of death, it is an idle formality to ask the accused as to what he has to say on the question of sentence. 
• In case the death sentence is made mandatory with regard to a particular class of persons, they would be deprived of opportunity under Section 235 (2) of CrPC and the Court would be relieved of the obligation under Section 354 (3) of CrPC. 
• The deprivation of these rights and safeguards is bound to result in injustice which is harsh, arbitrary and unjust. 
• The Court hence struck down Section 303 of IPC as unconstitutional.  

Conclusion 

• This is a landmark judgment that talks about the constitutional validity of Section 303 of IPC. 
• It declares Section 303 of IPC unconstitutional as it provides for mandatory death sentence.  
• The Court held that such prescription of mandatory death sentence is violative of Article 21 of the COI as it is arbitrary and deficient of the requisite safeguards.

[Original Judgment]