Section 303 requires a subsisting life sentence at final adjudication; a set-aside prior sentence cannot trigger mandatory death penalty.

The Supreme Court of India explained that the death sentence and life sentence imposed on the co-accused were not disturbed because the murder was committed in a coordinated manner, the fatal role of one accused justified the extreme penalty, and the other had been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34. It further held that Section 303 of the Penal Code applies only when the accused is under a subsisting and operative sentence of life imprisonment at the time of final adjudication. Because the earlier life sentence against Rohitsingh had been set aside before that stage, the mandatory death penalty could not be sustained and his sentence was reduced to life imprisonment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sentences of death and life imprisonment imposed on the appellants other than Rohitsingh called for interference; (ii) Whether Section 303 of the Penal Code applied to Rohitsingh when the earlier life sentence on which it depended had been set aside before the final adjudication of his appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the sentences of death and life imprisonment imposed on the appellants other than Rohitsingh called for interference.

Analysis: The murder was committed in a coordinated manner. Dilip Kumar inflicted the fatal knife injury while the others restrained the deceased. The role attributed to Dilip Kumar justified the extreme penalty, and Bharatsingh stood convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, for which the minimum punishment was imprisonment for life. No ground was made out to disturb either sentence.

Conclusion: The death sentence of Dilip Kumar and the life sentence of Bharatsingh were affirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 303 of the Penal Code applied to Rohitsingh when the earlier life sentence on which it depended had been set aside before the final adjudication of his appeal.

Analysis: Section 303 applies only where the accused is under an operative sentence of imprisonment for life when the court finally decides the murder case. A sentence later annulled on appeal ceases to exist in law, and a court dealing with the subsequent offence must take the later acquittal or reduction into account. A strict construction of this penal provision was required, and the expression "being under sentence of imprisonment for life" was confined to a final, subsisting and executable sentence.

Conclusion: Section 303 did not apply to Rohitsingh, and his sentence of death was reduced to imprisonment for life.

Final Conclusion: The appeals of Dilip Kumar and Bharatsingh failed, while Rohitsingh obtained relief on the sentencing question because the special death penalty under Section 303 was held inapplicable once the prior life sentence had ceased to be operative.

Ratio Decidendi: For the application of Section 303 of the Penal Code, the relevant life sentence must be subsisting and operative at the time the court finally adjudicates the murder case; if the foundation conviction or sentence is later set aside, the mandatory death penalty cannot be imposed under that section.

---