This article is written by Sakshi Raje. This article provides a detailed analysis of the landmark judgement of Jagmohan Singh vs. State of UP and raises concern in regards to the constitutional validity of capital punishment, and further elaborates on the facts of the case, issues, and critical analysis of the case. 

Introduction 

Different crimes have different punishments prescribed by law. Capital punishment, also known as death penalty, is a type of legal punishment where the individual who has committed a heinous crime which is of such a nature that has tendency to disturb the peace of the society, the law protectors has got the right to punish such individual. Such mode of punishment is designed to eliminate criminals from society and also to set an example for future perpetrators.  

There are various theories of punishment that can be relied on for the treatment of such perpetrators prescribed in jurisprudence, however Indian criminal jurisprudence follows the theory based on the combination of deterrent which aims to not only punish the offender but also set the marks which tends to discourage others from committing such crimes and reformative theory which tends to give the offender the chance to reform (improve)  and become law abiding citizen.

In India, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) and Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) are the primary legislations along with other statutes like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, governs and mentions about the laws and procedure on the basis of which death penalty can be imposed. 

History of death penalty

The history of death penalty in India can be traced back from the ancient times which reflects religious influence and societal norms, however over the period rationale behind capital punishment has evolved and is on continuous evolution. As in ancient and mediaeval period many texts like that of Manusmriti and philosophers like that of Kautilya were in favour of imposing capital punishment for some heinous crimes.  Whereas, in the British colonial period many changes were implemented in the Indian legal framework, as in IPC, 1860 for certain offences capital punishment were prescribed. The same was used as a mechanism for political repression and specifically against freedom fighters and dissenters.

After Independence there has been continuous debate going around in regards to the constitutional validity of capital punishment, where some critics are in favour of the retention of this punishment whereas others are in favour of its abolishment. As it has been debated that the punishment of death sentence is in violation of individuals constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 21 i.e. right to life and thereby from time and again the constitutional validity of capital punishment has been challenged in various cases. One such case is of Jagmohan Singh vs. State of UP (1972) , which is discussed in the below mentioned analysis.  

Details of the case

Appellant- Jagmohan Singh

Respondent- The State of U.P.

Bench- Justices Palekar, D.G., Sikri, S.M., Ray, A.N., Dua, I.D., Beg, M. Hameedullah

Date of Judgement- 3rd October 1972

Citation- 1973 AIR 947; 1973 SCR (2) 541; 1973 SCC (1) 20

Facts of the case 

In the present case, appellant Jagmohan Singh was convicted and sentenced to death for the  murder of one Chhotey Singh, however, it was alleged that this offence was committed out of past rivalry.

Shivraj Singh who was father of Jagbir Singh and cousin of Jagmohan Singh the appellant, was murdered. Chhotey Singh was alleged to be the accused of the crime and later convicted of Shivraj Singh’s murder. However, Chhotey Singh was later acquitted by the Allahabad High Court, which led to strained relations between Chhotey Singh (who had passed away), Jagbir Singh and Jagmohan Singh.

At the time when the offence of murder of Shivraj Singh was committed, Jagbir Singh and Chhotey Singh were minors, however on September 10, 1969 at about 5:00 PM i.e. the time of murder of deceased Chhotey Singh, both were grown up and were carrying the ill-will among each other. However, before this incident took place a day prior to the occurring of offence there was a quarrel between Chhotey Singh on one side and Jagbir Singh and Jagmohan Singh on the other side on the topic of the right to irrigate the fields, this dispute however was resolved by certain group of people who reached the spot and handled the situation so nothing major happened. On next day, while Chhotey Singh was passing by to fetch his field, the appellant and Jagbir Singh armed with country made pistol and lathi hide themselves in bajra field and appeared on the same route from where Chhotey Singh was passing to fetch his fodder. The appellant Jagmohan Singh asked Chhotey Singh to stop and discuss the matter in order to resolve the dispute between them once and for all, but Chhotey Singh tried to run away. Even though he tried to save himself, he was chased and shot in the back by the appellant, due to which Chotey Singh died.

Based on the facts of the case and the evidence presented and the circumstances of the case, it was held by the Session Judge that the appellant Jagmohan Singh deserved an extreme penalty, whereas the High Court agreeing with the Session Court’s decision confirmed his death sentence. Aggrieved of the said sentence the appellant approached the Supreme Court with the present appeal.   

Issues raised 

1. Whether the death sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 be declared unconstitutional due to its violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (a) to (g)?
2. Whether granting judges discretion to impose capital punishment without clear legislative guidelines constitute an undue transfer of essential law making power, thereby violating the principle of equality before the law enshrined under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
3. Whether the judicial discretion in imposing capital punishment, without explicit legislative standards, violates the principle of equal protection under Article 14 by potentially leading to arbitrary and discriminatory outcomes for similarly situated offenders?
4. Whether the absence of a specific procedural framework for imposing life imprisonment and the death penalty infringe upon the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21, particularly the right to a fair and just procedure? 

Arguments by the parties

The arguments raised by the parties was majorly in regards to the constitutional impermissibility of capital sentences for murder. The appellant side was represented by Mr. Garg and the following was argued:

1. It was argued that awarding death penalty to an individual would amount to infringement of their fundamental rights which are guaranteed under Article 19  and, thereby, the laws pertaining to the death penalty should be declared as unreasonable and not in the interest of the general public. This argument was further supported using the judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Furman vs. State of Georgia (1972), where the court rejected the capital punishment on the ground that awarding capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment which rejects cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the death penalty is excessive and unnecessary, and is in violation of the Eighth Amendment  to the United States Constitution. It’s now appropriate to recognize that for over 200 years, many experts have argued effectively that capital punishment serves no meaningful purpose and that life imprisonment could serve just as effectively. Therefore, the court was of the view that, based on the evidence presented, that the death penalty is immoral and therefore unconstitutional.
2. In yet another argument, the concern was raised that there has been a major miss from legislators’ side, since there has been no prescribed policy or standard in any statute or legislation for sentencing the death penalty, and thereby it was argued that the same needs rectification.   
3. Further, it was argued that in absence of any prescribed circumstances for imposing penalty for life imprisonment or death penalty and giving uncontrolled and unguided discretion in the hands of judges for imposition of such penalty is the infringement of person’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, since as per the given circumstances two persons found guilty of murder on similar facts are treated differently one was awarded death penalty whereas the other was suffering merely a sentence of life imprisonment. 
4. At the end, the fourth contention laid by appellant advocates was that the present statute lacks the prescribing of proper procedure for determining between the capital punishment and life imprisonment. The current statute i.e the Criminal Procedure Code only prescribes the guilt for the offence regardless of the circumstances and factors that contributed for such commission, and thereby in absence of prescribed procedure for sentencing punishment is clear violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and hence such provision of death sentence should be declared as unconstitutional. 

Laws discussed in Jagmohan Singh vs. State of UP (1972)

There were certain major laws that were discussed in the present case. They are as follows: 

The Constitution of India

Article 14 of the Constitution

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, which ensures that no person is discriminated against on any grounds, this principle basically lays the  foundation to the rule of law and is designed to prevent arbitrary actions by the State.

In one of the landmark judgement case of Dhananjay Chaterjee vs. State of West Bengal (1994) where a security guard was convicted of raping and murdering an 18-year-old girl, sets the example of a crime warranting the maximum penalty. Thereby, the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the death sentence reaffirmed the “rarest of rare” doctrine, emphasising the exceptional nature of the crime. This case highlights the delicate balance between the need for deterrence against such heinous acts and the constitutional principle of equality before the law.

Article 21 of the Constitution

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees Right to life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. As was also stated in Smt. Shashi Nayar vs. Union of India (1992), where Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment, ruling that the Section 302 of IPC does not violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as it guarantees the right to life, the State has the right to deprive a person of life through a procedure established by law, and in 1991, when Shashi Nayar challenged the death sentence again, arguing it was unconstitutional, the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the petition, stating that the death sentence imposed through fair and rational legal procedure does not violate individuals fundamental right.     

Article 134 of the Constitution

Article 134 of Indian Constitution, outlines the situations under which the Supreme Court can hear appeals from High Court decisions in criminal cases, it therefore essentially defines the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has the right to hear appeals in three specific cases:

• When a High Court overturns an acquittal and imposes a death sentence or life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least 10 years.
• When a High Court transfers a case to itself for trial and then convicts the accused and sentenced them to death.

Also, the Parliament can grant the Supreme Court additional powers to hear appeals from High Court criminal decisions under specific conditions and limitations.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code

Section 300 of IPC defines the offence of murder, as an act which cause death to another person with:

1. Intention to cause death, i.e. the offender clearly intends to kill the victim; and
2. Knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, that is, the offender knows that their actions will probably result in death, even if they don’t specifically intend to kill.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 

Section 302 of IPC defines punishment for such an act as whoever is guilty of murder shall be punished, the maximum punishment for commiting a crime for murder is death penalty, but the court also has the discretion to impose imprisonment for life and impose a fine.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 306(2) of CrPC

Section 306 specifies the power of the magistrate to grant pardon in exchange of wrongdoer giving full and clear disclosure of the information in regards to the crime. Further Section 306(2) explains the condition over which such pardon condition can be applied, that is, it determines the scope of the tender of pardon provision to the seriousness of offences, ensuring that this tool is used judiciously and only in cases where it is likely to yield crucial evidence for the prosecution.

Section 309(2) of CrPC

Section 309(2) of the CrPC basically gives the right to the court to postpone or adjourn an inquiry or trial if it deems necessary. This power is exercised with discretion and requires the court to record reasons for the decision. The court can also impose terms and conditions and remand the accused to custody, but for a maximum of 15 days at a time.

Judgement in Jagmohan Singh vs. State of UP (1972)

The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment. It was thereby held that capital punishment does not violate Article 21, 19 and 14 of the Indian Constitution.

While clarifying the concern raised in issue 1 regarding Article 19 which gives freedom of speech, freedom to expression and trade, it does not explicitly guarantee the right to life, nevertheless, the right to life is essential to exercise all other freedoms. Even the fundamental right of Article 21 can be restricted under reasonable circumstances for the public good. The death penalty, as outlined in Section 302 of IPC, is an example of such a restriction, where even the framers of the Constitution have also proven the legitimacy of such punishment before granting any other relief like that of granting the possibility of pardoning or commuting death sentences, indicating an implicit acknowledgment of capital punishment by the Constitution framers, and therefore, it was said that the death penalty cannot be considered unreasonable or unconstitutional.

While dealing with issue 2, there were various western philosophies being referred to by the appellant side wherein they tried to prove the ineffectiveness of death penalty, however it was observed by the Supreme Court that such idea cannot be applied appropriately in Indian scenario. Due to the presence of various differences and diversity in Indian culture, it was stated that for treating cases of such serious offences specific circumstances and severity needs to be considered.

Hon’ble Supreme Court further referred various other judgements, namely Ram Narain vs.  State of UP (1973) wherein it was mentioned that the Apex Court normally does not interfere with the judgement from High Court until there has been any serious offence and because of which serious failure to justice can occur. Whereas, in yet another case of Budhan Choudhary And Others vs. The State of Bihar (1954), it was established that Article 14 (right to equality) does not typically apply to judicial discretion, that means that different punishments for similar crimes do not necessarily violate equality if the judge considers the unique circumstances of each case individually.

Lastly, the arguments made against the death penalty as being in violation of fundamental right of individual and the removal of Section 367(5) of CrPC by the amendment of 1956 has removed mandatory death sentence and hence now the judges have the discretion in determining punishment and in case of any dissatisfaction they have the other option like that of appeal.

Rationale behind the judgement

The concerns raised by the appellate were in regard to challenging the constitutional validity of the death sentence, and violation of fundamental rights. The following rationale was provided behind the judgement:

1. Test of rationality and general public welfare: The Supreme Court, justifies its ruling on constitutionality of capital punishment, through its decision on both legal reasoning and societal consideration, wherein Article 19 safeguards freedoms like speech, expression, assembly, and movement, it doesn’t explicitly protect the right to life. However, it was argued that the ability to exercise freedoms such as speech and expression is contingent upon the right to life and it was therefore agreed that such right to life can’t be denied unless it is reasonable and is necessary in public interest.  Further covering the observation of Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri, in State of Madras vs. V. G. Row (1952) where it was held that in such a situation, it’s crucial to remember that when judging whether something is reasonable or not, each specific law being challenged should be considered separately. There’s no one size fits all measure of what’s reasonable that can be applied universally. Factors like prevailing circumstances, urgency of the remedy sought, whether the rules are too harsh compared to the issue, and the current circumstances should all be part of the judge’s decision. Thereby, in the present matter the punishment prescribed for the crime committed and evidence presented was able to pass the test of reasonableness and hence justified.

2.  Discretion of the court: The Supreme Court agreed that the power vested with the judges in imposing death penalty on wrongdoer is undisturbed and no specific process has been prescribed, however the judges must exercise and strike the balance between aggravating circumstances in determining death penalty in appropriate manner. Further, it is to be noted that this discretion is guided by proper legal principles and in case of any dispute appeal can be made to higher courts.

3.  Established procedure: It was stated by the Supreme Court that even though Article 21 guarantees the right to life, however capital punishment can be imposed for any offence if it is given in accordance with the procedure established by law, this is done to ensure that the sentence is based on fair trial and within the legal framework.    

Analysis of the case

The capital punishment prescribed by the High Court of Uttar Pradesh was justified because of the severity of the crime committed, as any less punishment would have set wrong example in the society and also as explained by Supreme Court even though there has been no procedure set and no prescribed punishment and circumstances under which the capital punishment can be imposed on individual the judges have been trained and empowered to do so, and can exercises this authority at their own discretion. Since it was also known to legislatures that the same crime can be done due to different circumstances and may require a different set of punishment based on reasonableness and benefit of the general public. 

Hence the case sets a perfect example for explaining the constitutional validity of capital punishment.

Improvement in legal status of capital punishment

After the Jagmohan Singh case, with the passage of time and improvement in society there have been various changes like that of setting of the doctrine named “rarest of the rare doctrine” on the basis of which punishments are prescribed. Some of the landmark judgements pertaining to that are as follows:

Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980)

In this case, Bachan Singh was tried and convicted of murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was punished to the death sentence by the Session Court. However, he then filed an appeal to the High Court which was refused by the High Court and his death sentence was confirmed. He later filed an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Capital Punishment 

Even though the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment but has also introduced the doctrine of rarest of the rare.

As per the “doctrine of rarest of rare”, death sentence should be prescribed to the individual in rare cases, as to when the option for imprisonment for life has been fully exhausted, further the court also has to consider the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the nature of the crime. In conclusion, it can be said that this doctrine aims to ensure that the punishment to death is prescribed in a fair and rational manner. 

Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983)

In this case, Machhi Singh along with other member from the village committed series of attack in 5 villages of Punjab due to his personal rivalry, all victims were attacked and were killed, Machi Singh along with others was therefore sentenced to death by Sessions Court, they later made an appeal to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed and there death sentence was therefore upheld.

Later the appeal was made to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution which mentions about the Special Leave Petition (SLP). The Supreme Court in this case upheld the death sentence by applying the rarest of the rare case doctrine,  as per which the death penalty can only be prescribed to an individual under exceptional circumstances and the judges have to give special reasoning for prescribing such punishment.    

Mithu vs. State of Punjab (1983) 

In this case, Mithu Singh who was already serving imprisonment to life punishment was later tried and convicted under Section 302 and Section 34 of IPC for the commission of murder and was prescribed punishment to death under Section 303. 

They therefore raised an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 303. It was argued by the appellant that Section 303 should be declared as unconstitutional in the absence of any prescribed procedure and also because it gives power to authorities to deprive individuals life without any rationale, whereas from the respondent side it was argued that since the question on prescribing death sentence to individual has already been upheld in Bachan Singh case, and therefore the question on constitutionality of Section 303 is of no relevance as the same prescribes the punishment similar to that of a crime committed of murder.

In this case the Supreme Court held that since Section 303 of IPC prescribes death sentence to an individual who is already serving life imprisonment, as unconstitutional as the same is in violation of Article 14 of Indian Constitution which states right to equality and Article 21 of Indian Constitution which prescribes right to life.

The reasoning that was provided for declaring Section 303 as unconstitutional was that, firstly the section lacks in providing any alternative punishment unlike Section 302 which prescribes either imprisonment to life or death sentence, which violates the principle of prescribing punishment to death in exceptional circumstances, and secondly this Section lacks the procedural safeguard as to state the special circumstances under which sentence to death should be prescribed to an individual.

As a result of this striking off of the provision under Section 303 under Mithu Singh judgement prescribing death sentence in India is restricted. Furthermore, the rarest of the rare doctrine under Bachan Singh case was again reinforced and has thereby emphasised the need for considering both crime and circumstances for committing offence like that of murder, before prescribing death sentence to an individual.   

Conclusion 

Capital punishment is a highly debated topic, not only in India but also in other parts of the world. Different jurisdictions have varying stances on this issue. While some countries consider capital punishment a mandatory punishment for heinous crimes, many others have abolished it altogether. However, in India, various improvements and doctrines like that of rarest of rare and other doctrines have been established over time to adapt to the changing circumstances of the nation.

In the present case, Jagmohan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh it stands as a cornerstone in the Indian legal system’s approach to capital punishment. It reinforced the idea that while the right to life and personal liberty is fundamental, it can be curtailed by law in the interest of justice for the gravest offences, thereby balancing individual rights with the need for societal order and deterrence.

References

• https://www.indianbarassociation.org/constitutionality-of-death-penalty/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/capital-punishment-in-india-2/ 
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/14-landmark-judgments-on-article-14/