The Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab[1] is that Section 303 of the IPC [2]is unconstitutional and arbitrary. The Court deleted Section 303 and said that all the cases pertaining to murder should be prosecuted in accordance with Section 302 of the IPC[3].

I strongly agree with the judgement given by the Apex Court. The judges rightly ruled that Section 303 was arbitrary and undermined the discretion of the Court. The punishment under this section created a form of absolute liability and the legislators disregarded various significant aspects of multiple cases that could attract the infliction of these particular actions.

Justice Desai rightly stated:
"The word 'Law' in the expression 'procedure established by law' in Article 21[4] has been interpreted to mean in Maneka Gandhi's case that the law must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Otherwise, there would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. If it is arbitrary, it would be violative of Article 14[5]".

If a law provides that an accused shall not be allowed to present evidence in his/her self-defence that too in a death penalty case will directly violate the principles of Articles 14 and 12. It would be a ferocious sentence which is an anathema to the civilized jurisprudence of Article 21. The court's discretion is significant while deciding the case.

The judges should consider the circumstances in which the crime is committed. Talking about the given case, Murders are committed for any one or more variety of motives which operate in the offender's mind, irrespective of whether he is under a sentence of life imprisonment or not. Hate, lust, sex, jealousy, gain, revenge, and a host of weaknesses, to which human beings are subject, drive motives for committing a crime. The circumstances and the situation in which the crime is committed should be considered while giving the judgment.

Talking about the debate surrounding the constitutionality of the Death Penalty, it has prevailed since ancient times. The history of the death penalty goes back nearly 4,000 years. Many countries view capital punishment as an inherently arbitrary and inhumane act. However, society has always used punishment to discourage criminals from committing unlawful actions. Previously there was no concept of grievous crimes that would warrant the death penalty in India.

It is in the present time that, the concepts like 'rarest of rare cases', 'special reasons', 'grievous crimes', etc. are taken into consideration while deciding a case on capital punishment. Even in the case of Mithu Singh judges held that the death penalty is constitutionally valid and is just.

While giving the death penalty judges have to state special reasons for the judgement and it should be only sentenced in the 'rarest of the rare cases', Judges cannot sentence the death penalty for every other case. The death penalty certainly 'deters' the murderer who is executed. If the procedure mentioned in the law is properly followed and the law is properly executed then the death penalty is not unjust.

I think that the death penalty is important in order to improve society for the general public. It is apparent that the reformative theory of punishment has failed miserably in India and the rate of crime is increasing. Abolishing the death penalty in the current world would make no sense, as India has increasing rape and murder cases.

End Notes:

• Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 473 1983
• Indian Penal Code 1860, s 303
• Indian Penal Code 1860, s 302
• Constitution of India 1950, Art. 21
• Constitution of India 1950, Art. 14

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Ankita

Authentication No: SP425562388605-11-0924