Mithu V State Of Punjab – Mandatory Death Penalty Declared Unconstitutional
1. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) – 1 SCC 206
Facts:
The petitioner, Mithu, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 376(2) of the IPC, which, under Section 303 IPC, prescribed a mandatory death sentence for murder committed by a repeat offender of certain grave offences (like murder committed by a person previously convicted for murder).
The law did not allow the court any discretion to impose life imprisonment instead.
Issue:
Whether Section 303 IPC, which mandates death penalty for repeat murderers, violates Articles 14 (Equality before law) and 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 303 IPC as unconstitutional.
Reasoning:
Article 21 guarantees the right to life. A law that mandates death without discretion violates this right.
It also violates Article 14, as it treats all repeat murderers the same way regardless of circumstances, which is arbitrary and unreasonable.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer famously stated that the law made “no distinction between the cold-blooded killer and the one who kills under exceptional circumstances”.
Key Principle:
Death penalty cannot be mandatory; sentencing must allow judicial discretion to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) – 2 SCC 684
Facts:
This case considered the constitutional validity of Section 302 IPC, which allowed the death penalty as a judicial discretion for murder.
Bachan Singh was convicted of murder, and the trial court imposed death sentence.
Issues:
Whether the death penalty itself violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
How to decide between life imprisonment and death sentence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that death penalty is not unconstitutional per se, but:
It must be used rarely and only in the “rarest of rare cases”.
The court must consider mitigating circumstances before sentencing.
This established the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which continues to guide death penalty jurisprudence in India.
Key Principle:
Death penalty is an exception, not a rule; discretion is mandatory.
3. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) – 3 SCC 470
Facts:
Machhi Singh and others were convicted of murder during a dacoity, a heinous crime.
Judgment:
Supreme Court applied the “rarest of rare” doctrine from Bachan Singh.
Court considered:
The manner of commission
The circumstances of the crime
The anti-social nature of the act
Death penalty was imposed because the crime was extremely brutal, showing utter disregard for human life.
Key Principle:
Death penalty is justified only when the crime shocks the collective conscience of society.
4. Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) – 4 SCC 132
Facts:
Convicted under IPC 302, the appellant challenged the death sentence.
Judgment:
Supreme Court reiterated that death sentence should not be imposed routinely.
Courts must consider:
Nature of crime
Circumstances of the accused
Possibility of reform
Death sentence can only be imposed if life imprisonment is inadequate to meet justice.
Key Principle:
Even in grave offences, judicial discretion and individual assessment are essential.
5. Surender v. State of Haryana (2011) – 8 SCC 670
Facts:
Convicted for a brutal murder, the accused was sentenced to death.
Judgment:
Court emphasized the rarest of rare doctrine again:
Death penalty is exceptional, not automatic.
Mandatory death sentences violate Articles 14 and 21.
Key Principle:
Reaffirmed Mithu v. State of Punjab: no statute can mandate death without discretion.
6. Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020)
Facts:
Murder case with special circumstances.
Judgment:
SC again reiterated that mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional, and individualized sentencing is a must.
Principle:
The court must weigh both aggravating and mitigating factors, as established in Mithu and Bachan Singh.
Summary / Key Takeaways
Mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional – Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983).
Death penalty is not per se unconstitutional, but can only be imposed in rarest of rare cases – Bachan Singh (1980).
Judicial discretion is essential; courts must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances – Machhi Singh (1983), Santosh Bariyar (2009).
Nature of crime, circumstances, and offender’s profile guide the imposition of capital punishment.
Legislations cannot take away judicial discretion under Articles 14 and 21.
RELATED Blog
comments