https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287289 Capital punishment for murder was held constitutionally valid, and the Court rejected the challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 21. It reasoned that the Constitution permits deprivation of life by procedure established by law, and that leaving the choice between death and life imprisonment to judicial discretion under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code does not amount to abdication of legislative function. The absence of rigid sentencing standards was not treated as unconstitutional discrimination, because sentencing must be based on aggravating and mitigating circumstances. On the facts, the murder was deliberate and premeditated, with no basis to interfere with the concurrent imposition of the death sentence. en-us Tue, 03 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Dec 2021 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287289 Capital punishment for murder was held constitutionally valid, and the Court rejected the challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 21. It reasoned that the Constitution permits deprivation of life by procedure established by law, and that leaving the choice between death and life imprisonment to judicial discretion under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code does not amount to abdication of legislative function. The absence of rigid sentencing standards was not treated as unconstitutional discrimination, because sentencing must be based on aggravating and mitigating circumstances. On the facts, the murder was deliberate and premeditated, with no basis to interfere with the concurrent imposition of the death sentence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287289