Constitutionality of Section 303 IPC & Capital punishment

Constitutionality of Section 303 IPC & Capital punishment

Author: Ishan Mishra, K.R. Mangalam University

Edited By: Gyanu Patel, Amity University Lucknow (UP)

INTRODUCTION

A person accused of any crime until & unless convicted just like the other citizens has the complete right to live with dignity as is enshrined & provided by the Constitution of India. The expression “Capital Punishment” is the most extreme type of punishment.

The constitutional validity of section 303 of the former Indian Penal Code of 1860 which states the provision or mandates the death penalty for certain offences being committed by a person already serving a death sentence has undeniably been a subject of significant ethical & legal debate in India. Don’t such provisions raise some critical questions about the principle of justice, human rights, & the state’s role in administering such capital punishment? However, some of the maxims like “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea”, “culpae poene par esto”, and “dura lex sed lex” which relates to “an act doesn’t make one guilty unless the mind is also legally blameworthy”, “the punishment should be proportionate to the crime” & “the law is harsh, but it is the law” respectively.

The other term or way to address Section 303 can be called capital punishment, the context of which in itself is often viewed as a controversial or divisive issue. However, it is argued that it serves as a deterrent against some of the heinous crimes such as rape & murder & delivers justice for the victims & society. But on the converse, it is contended as an irreversible & and inhumane punishment which doesn’t effectively deter crime & disproportionally affects marginalized communities.

Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code’s constitutionality has been challenged on many grounds, inclusive of its compatibility with the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India, particularly the right to equality & right to life that is article 14 & 21 of the constitution respectively.

The Supreme Court of India, however, have addressed these concerns & emphasised the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the implications of the death penalty within the framework of such constitutional rights.

Keywords: Section 303 IPC, Constitutionality, Capital Punishment, Death penalty, Human rights, justice, Deterrent effect, Fundamental rights, Right to equality, Right to life

MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

The meaning & or the definition of Section 303 of the former Indian Penal Code is something that pertains to the punishment for a person who has committed an offence of “Murder” while already serving a life sentence. This section states that if a person who is sentenced to life imprisonment commits an offence of murder, then they shall be punished with a death sentence also known as Capital Punishment.

In the legal context, its explanation goes like “A section that was introduced to deter prisoners already serving life sentences from committing further crimes like murder particularly. The rationale is to maintain order within prisons & protect society from repeat offenders. However, the constitutionality of this section (303) has been subject to certain challenges primarily on the grounds of:

Article 14(Right to Equality/Everyone’s equal before the law) & Article 21(Right to life & personal liberty)

However, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of section 303 IPC, further emphasizing that the legislature has the authority to prescribe different punishments for different categories of crimes & offenders. Whereas “Capital Punishment” can or may be defined/explained as a state-sanctioned execution of a person as a punishment for a crime, typically for serious offences such as those relating to murder or terrorism.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION

The draft of the IPC was prepared by Thomas Macaulay & was enacted in the year 1860 during British colonial rule. It aimed to provide a comprehensive legal framework for the criminal law in India. Section 303 was included as a means to address the specific issue of repeating offenders, particularly those who were murdered while serving a life sentence already.

The rationale behind section 303 was introduced as a means to deter the prisoners from committing further serious crimes and murder especially while one was incarcerated. It was a reflection of the British legal system’s approach to maintaining order & discipline within the prisons. “In all parts of the world death punishment was in presence from the most -old circumstances”.

Capital Punishment’s history in India can be divided into 2 parts:

Pre-Independence: The evolution or the inception of the death penalty (capital punishment) can be traced back to the 18th century B.C.E. in the code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, wherein the death penalty was codified for different types of crimes. The ancient texts like the Arthashastra written by Kautilya also outlined various offences & corresponding punishments, inclusive of death. Also during the medieval period, under the dynasties & empires like that of the Mughals, capital punishment was still prevalent. It was used as a common tool for maintaining law & order & as a deterrent against rebellion & crimes.

Post-Independence: India gained independence in the year 1947 & the constitutional framework of Article 14 & Article 21 which state equality before the law & right to life & personal liberty respectively retained however, these rights aren’t absolute rights & capital punishment is still permissible by the procedure established by law. The Judiciary has since then upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty through several landmark cases, further assisting that it can be imposed in the “rarest of the rare cases”. The Judicial pronouncements were made through the following cases:

“Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab” (1980) This landmark judgement by the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty & had laid down the “rarest of the rare” doctrine for its application.

“Macchi Singh Vs. State of Punjab” (1983) This case kept in mind the end goal to further illustrate the rarest of the uncommon cases that the circumstances where the use of the death sentence could be legitimized.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

Country

Status of Capital Punishment

Key Features

Comparison to Section 303 I.P.C

United States of America

It is legal in many states here.

Some of the states have abolished it, while it is still rigorously enforced by other states.

Similarly, it allows for the death penalty for serious crimes, but it lacks a specific provision for the repeating offenders.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom Capital Punishment did get abolished in the year 1965.

It was abolished for murder, with no return to it since

The United Kingdom, unlike section 303 does not have any provision for capital punishment.

Japan

It is legal but is rarely used.

The death penalty does exist, with the executions carried out in secrecy.

Similar to that of the United States of America.

China

It is widely used.

Thousands are annually executed, for a range of crimes inclusive of non-violative offences.

The application is more extensive for capital punishment as compared to India’s focused approach.

Saudi Arabia

It is legal & frequently applied.

Public executions are used for a range of offences inclusive of theft & drug trafficking.

It is more expansive in scope than in comparison to section 303, applied to various crimes beyond that of murder.

Germany

Had abolished it in the year 1951.

It was strongly opposed as it was violative of the Human Right.

It wasn’t equivalent to section 303 since capital punishment was completely abolished.

India

It is legal but with certain restrictions.

Here the death penalty is reserved for the “rarest of the rare cases”, and specific criteria are added for life sentencing offenders.

In comparison to other nations, it has a unique focus on repeating offenders.

 

CAUSES / EFFECT RELATION WITH OTHER CONCEPTS

Deterrence Theory

Cause: Inclusive of section 303, the rationale behind capital punishment is often rooted in the belief that such severe penalties deter crime.

Effect: The deterrence theory influences public policy & judicial decisions, as some lawmakers may argue that such harsher punishments prevent future offences, particularly among those repeating offenders.

Human Rights

Cause: Significant human rights concerns have been raised through the imposition of capital punishment, particularly regarding the right to life & right to fair trial.

Effect: Human Rights Advocacy has led to calls for the abolition of the death penalty in many countries further influencing legal reforms & public opinion.

Rehabilitation Vs. Retribution

Cause: This debate between rehabilitation & retribution is quite central to discussions about capital punishment & section 303 of the I.P.C.

Effect: Countries that prioritize rehabilitation tend to abolish capital punishment, while those emphasizing retributive justice may retain it, influencing their legal systems & correctional policies.

Judicial Discretion

Cause: Section 303 application & capital punishment often involve such judicial discretion, where judges assess the circumstances of the crime & the background of the offender.

Effect: Such discretion can also lead to some inconsistencies in sentencing & or raise concerns about equality before the law & potential biases in the judicial process.

Public Opinion

Cause: Societal attitudes towards crime & punishment are influenced significantly by the acceptance or rejection of capital punishment.

Effect: Legislative changes may be swayed by such public opinion, which will lead to either the abolition or the reinforcement of the capital punishment laws, including provisions like that of section 303.

International law & treaties

Cause: The International Human Rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights do advocate for the abolition of the death penalty.

Effect: The countries which are signatories may feel pressured to reform their laws regarding capital punishment, also affecting how laws like section 303 are viewed & implemented.

Types / Kinds  

Capital punishment can of certain types such as:

  • Mandatory death penalty: In certain jurisdictions, the death penalty is automatically imposed for certain specific crimes, with no discretion for judges.
  • Discretionary death penalty: There are many jurisdictions where the judges have the discretion to impose the death penalty based on the case specifics.
  • Execution methods: Various methods of execution are employed by different countries, which include hanging, lethal injection, and electrocution.

FORMS / MODES

Forms of section 303 can be:

Statutory form: Section 303 in the I.P.C. is a specific legal provision which prescribes the death penalty for a murder committed by any person serving a life sentence.

Judicial interpretation: Section 303 has been interpreted by the court in various cases, which leads to different applications based on judicial discretion.

MODES OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ARE

Legal framework: Capital punishments are operated within a legal framework which outlines the crimes punishable by death & the procedures for trials & sentencing.

Execution Methods: Various methods are used to carry out capital punishment, which can include:

  • Hanging: This is traditionally used by India, along with other countries.
  • Lethal Injection: It is a common method adopted by the United States which involves a series of drugs administered to cause deaths.
  • Electrocution: It is an alternative to lethal injection which is used in many jurisdictions.

Procedural Modes: It is defined as a process which leads to capital punishment & includes:

Trial Process: It is the legal proceeding which determines the guilt & or the eligibility for the death penalty.

Sentencing Phase: It is a separate phase in some jurisdictions where the judge decides on the death penalty.

Appeals Process: The opportunities for the convicted person to appeal the sentence, can prolong the execution process.

ESSENTIALS / ELEMENTS / PRE-REQUISITES

Essential & elements of section 303 are:

  • Existence of a life sentence: The offender must be serving a life sentence for a previous conviction. It establishes the context under which the section applies.
  • Commission of Murder: The committed act must qualify as murder under the IPC. Intentional killing is also included in the definition of murder, which needs to be proven in court.
  • Intent & Malice: The offender must have the intention to kill or cause such bodily injury which is likely to cause death.

Pre-requisites for section 303 are

  • Previous Conviction: There should be a record of a previous conviction which led to a life sentence.
  • Sufficient evidence: Due process must be followed & there should be adequate evidence to support the charge of murder.

Essentials & elements of Capital Punishment:

  • It must be established by law, specifying the crimes punishable by death.
  • The crime should be classified as a Capital offence, typically involving severe harm or a threat to society.
  • The legal process must adhere to principles of due process, inclusive of fair trial rights.
  • There are many jurisdictions, where a separate sentencing phase determines whether or not the death penalty will be applied.

The prerequisites of capital punishment are:

  • The individual must have been convicted of a crime qualifying for the death penalty under the applicable law.
  • The individuals should have the opportunity for appeals & legal challenges relating to the death sentences.
  • The death penalty sentences are often reviewed by the Higher Courts to ensure the legality & appropriateness of the sentence.

DEFENCES / EXCEPTIONS / EXCEPTIONS TO DEFENCES 

  • It can be argued by the accused that they didn’t have any intention to kill or cause such an injury that is likely to cause death.
  • The defence of self-defence or insanity can also be claimed by the accused if the act was done in that manner.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

The certain legal provision & or the specification that is related to Section 303 is the definition of murder as it is provided in Section 299-300 of the Indian Penal Code & now Section 100 & 101 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, specifying what constitutes murder & how it is distinguished from culpable homicide & the legal provision & or the specification for that of the capital punishment are in the context of article 21 of the Constitution of India which has the implications for the capital punishments imposition, along with section 368 of the Cr.PC that gives the power to High Courts for the trials inclusive of capital punishment.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS / JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT 

 In Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab the Supreme Court had held up the constitutional validity of section 303 of the IPC further stating that it is not violative of article 21 of the Constitution of India if it is being applied legally. It was in this case that the court had established the principle that in the “rarest of the rare cases” only such death penalty shall be imposed or applied. This judgement also provided the judges with some guidelines to consider when deciding whether the death penalty needs to be imposed, including the circumstances of the crime, the character of the criminal & the impact it has on society.

Simultaneously in Macchi Singh Vs. The state of Punjab again the validity of section 303 was upheld by the Supreme Court which provides for the death penalty for a convicted person in case of a murder if they had been convicted for the same previously. This judgement reiterated the “rarest of the rare cases” doctrine which was established in the case of Bacchan Singh.

INTERPRETATIONS / EXPLANATIONS

The interpretation of context can be that section 303 of the IPC provides a framework for the imposition of the death penalty on habitual offenders, but the application of which is a subject of judicial scrutiny, human rights considerations, public sentiments & the principles of justice.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

  • Rarest of the rare case doctrine: This doctrine was established in the case of Bachchan Singh which stipulates that the death penalty being imposed should only be in the rarest of the rare cases which means that the case is so heinous that it shakes the collective consciousness of the society.
  • Retributive Justice theory: This theory deals with the ‘righting of the balance’. If a criminal has done a wrong towards a person or property they need to be given a penalty in a manner which balances out the wrong done. E.g.- If a person has committed a murder, he can be delivered capital punishment to balance out the suffering caused to the victim & their family.
  • Deterrence Theory: It serves as a major tool in maintaining the general law & order in society. Criminal acts are penalized to deter individuals from repeating them or even entering into them in the first place.

MAXIMS / PRINCIPLES 

The applicable maxim to the concept of Death Penalty is “Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” which translates to “an act doesn’t make one guilty unless the mind is also legally blameworthy”.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

  • The current debates about the effectiveness of the death penalty may lead to some amendments in section 303 or may even result in its repeal.
  • Advocating for the abolishment of capital punishment globally may create pressure on India to reconsider its stance on such death penalty.
  • As the awareness of the public of criminal justice issues grows, societal attitudes towards capital punishment can shift potentially.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

To conclude though this section of capital punishment is somewhere being violative of the fundamental rights such as articles 14,19,20,21,22 that are enshrined & provided to every citizen of India through the Constitution of this very country. It can be an unending debate whether capital punishment should completely be abolished or should be used depending on the case if it falls in the category of heinous offences such as those murder, rape, terrorism or treason. In the end and as a personal opinion, it should be used depending on the case because if the person committing an offence of the same nature after the conviction for the same is indicative of the level of hatred one could possess, such hardcore criminals who in major cases have no shame for their act should be punished accordingly in such a manner so that such repeat offenders have some amount of shame & fear of their lives & that of the applicable law to set a precedent for the society. Lastly, it would be a suggestion that resources & efforts should be somewhat towards redirecting the crime prevention & rehabilitation of offenders.

REFERENCES