Mithu V State of Punjab: Sumbitted by

Mithu v State of Punjab
SUMBITTED BY
TIYAS RAHA
BBA L.L.B (H)
4TH SEMESTER
SCHOOL OF LAW & JUSTICE
ADAMAS UNIVERSITY, KOLKATA
IN
MAY, 2019
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Ms. ANULINA BHATTACHARYA
SCHOOL OF LAW & JUSTICE
ADAMAS UNIVERSITY, KOLKATA
CERTIFICATE
The project entitled MITHU VS STATE OF PUNJAB submitted to the Adamas University for Law of Crimes
under Penal Code as part of Internal Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the
guidance of Ms. Anulina bhattarcharya. The Research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award
of any degree.
The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research paper has been duly
acknowledged.
I understand that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected
later on.
Introduction
Capital Punishment, frequently known as death penalty, is a highly controversial matter to be discussed.
In the above mentioned landmark case Supreme Court held that Section 303 of Indian Penal Code is
unconstitutional thus void as it violates the right given under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21
(Right to Life) of the constitution of India.
.Issues:
(a)Whether the mandatory death sentence under section 303 is constitutionally valid or not?
(b)Whether under Section 303, I.P.C., there is a rational justification for making a distinction in the
matter of punishment between persons who commits murder and has/hasn’t criminal antecedent.
Further, whether there is a rational justification for making a distinction between persons who commits
murder has served or serving the life sentence?
(c)Whether section 303, I.P.C. the mandatory sentence of death answers the test of reasonableness?
(d) Whether there is a rational justification while making a distinction between persons who is serving
life Imprisonment where therein life imprisonment is the maximum/minimum (life imprisonment)
punishment can be given?
(e)Whether Section 303 abridges the Judge’s discretion in the matter of fixing the degree of punishment
or not?
(f)Whether section 303 stands violate of section 235 (2), Cr.P.C., 1973 which guarantees a convict a right
to be heard while deciding the question of his/her sentence.?
(g)Whether section 303 infringes section 354 (3), Cr.P.C 1973 whereby the courts are bound to provide
special reasons for imposing sentence of death?
.Judgment:
(a)Section 303, IPC is unconstitutional thus void as it violates the guarantee of equality under Art. 14 and
also violates the right to life conferred under Art. 21 of the constitution as not only for the reason that it
is unreasonable and arbitrary but also because it authorizes deprivation of life by an unjust and unfair
procedure.
(b)No studies conducted, no statistical data is there and no scientific investigation to distinct in the
matter of punishment between persons who commits murder and has/hasn’t criminal antecedent and
also distinction between persons who commits murder has served or serving the life sentence.
(c)Section 303 had failed the test of reasonableness as the circumstances that a person is undergoing a
sentence of life imprisonment does not minimize the importance of mitigating factors which are
relevant on the question of sentence which should be imposed for the offence committed by him while
he is under the sentence of life imprisonment.
(d)There is no justification for prescribing a mandatory sentence of death for the offence of murder
committed inside or outside the prison by a person who is under the sentence of life imprisonment.
Indeed, if there is no scientific investigation on this point in our country, there is no basis for treating
such persons differently from others who commit murders.
(e)The impossibility of laying down standards is at the very core of the criminal law as administered in
India which invests the judges with a very wide discretion in the matter of fixing the degree of
punishment. The exercise of judicial discretion on well-recognized principles is, in the final analysis, the
safest possible safeguard for the accused. There is no reason why in the case of a person whose case
falls under section 303, factors like the age and sex of the offender, the provocation received by the
offenders and the motive of the crime should be excluded from consideration on the question of
sentence.
(f)Section 303 which in contravention of section 235(2) Cr.P.C, 1973 deprives the right of a convict to be
heard while deciding the question of pronouncing of sentence. The deprivation of these rights which is
bound to result in injustice is harsh, arbitrary and unjust.
(g)Section 303 infringes section 354 (3), Cr.P.C 1973 as courts have a special obligation to state the
special reasons for imposing the sentence of death but section 303 is directly directing the courts to give
a death sentence without giving any necessary justification for the imposition of sentence of death.
.Critical Analysis:
In the above mentioned landmark case where in five judges constitutional bench, presided over by the
then Chief Justice Y.V.Chandrachud unanimous decision to struck down Section 303 of IPC,1860 can be
seen as a development towards changing nature of human consciousness.
In this Judgment Supreme Court had taken into account the

distinction made between in the matter of punishment between persons who commits murder and
has/hasn’t criminal antecedent and also the distinction between persons who commits murder has
served or serving the life sentence.

Mithu V State of Punjab: Sumbitted by

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mithu V State of Punjab: Sumbitted by

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mithu V State of Punjab: Sumbitted by

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mithu v State of Punjab

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

In this Judgment Supreme Court had taken into account the

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.