TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the death penalty prescribed for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is unconstitutional; (ii) whether the sentencing procedure under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is unconstitutional for conferring unguided and arbitrary discretion in the imposition of death sentence.
Issue (i): Whether the death penalty prescribed for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is unconstitutional.
Analysis: The constitutional challenge was examined against Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The majority held that the Penal Code does not, in pith and substance, deal with the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 so as to attract a direct challenge on that basis in the present context. It further held that death penalty for murder is not per se unconstitutional, because the Constitution contemplates deprivation of life according to procedure established by law and recognises death sentence in the constitutional scheme. The validity of the provision was also supported by the legislative history, the presumption of constitutionality, the safeguards available in the criminal process, and the view that capital punishment may still serve a legitimate penal purpose in exceptional cases.
Conclusion: Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was held constitutional and not violative of Articles 14, 19 or 21.
Issue (ii): Whether the sentencing procedure under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is unconstitutional for conferring unguided and arbitrary discretion in the imposition of death sentence.
Analysis: The majority held that Section 354(3) represents a legislative shift making life imprisonment the rule and death sentence the exception, requiring special reasons for the latter. It further held that the discretion of the court is not unguided, because it is controlled by the broad legislative policy, the requirement of recorded special reasons, the pre-sentence hearing under the criminal procedure, and appellate and confirmatory safeguards. The Court declined to formulate rigid exhaustive standards, holding that sentencing must remain individualized and that broad judicially recognised principles are sufficient guidance. The dissent took the opposite view, but it did not form the majority holding.
Conclusion: Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held constitutional and not arbitrary or discriminatory.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutional validity of death penalty and the corresponding sentencing procedure failed, and the impugned provisions were upheld as valid under the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: A penal provision prescribing death penalty is constitutionally valid where the statute makes life imprisonment the normal rule, requires special reasons for death sentence, and the sentencing discretion is exercised judicially on recognised principles with appellate safeguards.
TaxTMI 
