CASE ANALYSIS – MITHU VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 1983 AIR 473

INTRODUCTION:

The case of Mithu v. State of Punjab is one of the most powerful judgments delivered by the Supreme Court that deals with mandatory death sentencing, and it still holds a strong value when discussing rights of prisoners in India. The central issue revolved around Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, which made it compulsory to give the death penalty to anyone who was already serving a life sentence and was found guilty of committing murder again.

Now the real concern with this section was that it did not give any room to the court to look into the background or individual circumstances of the crime. Whether the murder was out of provocation, accident, self-defence, or any other reason — the only sentence allowed was death.

This case gave the Supreme Court a chance to look into whether this section of law was just and fair, or if it was in fact violating the basic rights of prisoners under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Mithu, the petitioner was serving a life imprisonment sentence given by the court for the earlier offence. 

During the convicted period, he was being accused for another crime of killing another inmate and this murder occurred when he was under custody in prison premises

During the trial, the court referred to Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code and according to this section any life-imprisonment convicted person who commits a murder during his punishment must be given the death sentence.

Even if the murder was committed in the form of self-defence, anger, or pressure, the trial court had not given any power to consider knowing the full circumstances of the murder, because the law gave no scope to look into the matter.

Under Section 303 IPC, Mithu was given the death sentence by the court, and so he challenged this law of IPC under the grounds of unfair and unconstitutional.

Mithu argued that this section had violated the fundamental rights, such as Article 14 (Equality before law) and Article 21 (Right to life) which had been given by the government to citizens and also stated that this section also took away the judge’s freedom to decide the verdict based on facts. 

The matter was taken to the Supreme Court for a final decision on the constitutionality of 303 IPC section.  

ISSUES:

1. Whether Section 303 of the IPC violates Article 14 and goes against Article 21 of the Indian constitution?
2. Whether the court has the power to decide punishment based on the facts of the case?
3. Is a mandatory death sentence without any exception a fair legal provision?
4. Can a person’s criminal background be the only reason for harsher punishment, even if the second crime is not brutal or intentional?

Judgement:

The Supreme Court struck down Section 303 of IPC in his judgement. The court held that it was unconstitutional and stated that it is not fair for forcing death penalty on a convicted person without going through the facts of the case. 

Furthermore, it stated that judges should have the freedom to decide punishment based on each offence in particular cases. Additionally, Court stated that Section 303 violates the very right of Article 21 as it announced a death penalty for a person without listening to the other side of the story thus violating audi alteram partem. Judges pointed out in his verdict that some murders may happen by accident, in self-defence, or under mental pressure, but Section 303 of IPC is not providing any exception to these things. The court lastly listed that law that does not allow fair hearing on punishment is against the principle of natural justice. 

So, Section 303 of IPC was declared null and void, and it was removed from the existence in Indian Penal Code after this judgement.

Reasoning:

In this case, section 303 forced the judges to give the death sentence, even if it was an act of self-defence, mental illness, or sudden fight incident. The court said that being someone convicted in jail does not means that they are being deprived of basic fundamental rights and they are a just a human being like others. 

Judges explained that Article 21 protects the right to life and it states that every life matters and court or government should follow fair procedures. The court said that this law was too rigid and gave no space and power for judges to understand the whole background of the case before deciding the death sentence. They additionally mentioned that not all murders are same; some may be planned, while other might be accidental. So, it is not fair to give the same punishment to every life convict who committed murder.

Lastly they stated that Section 303 violated Article 14, because it treated life convicts more harshly than others, even when they committed the same offence. Overall, the court felt that Section 303 of IPC was not fair, just or reasonable, and should not be allowed under constitution.

Conclusion:

This case became a milestone in showing that even prisoners have some basic rights and should not be treated unfairly. Supreme Court made it clear that punishment should not be automatic, especially in the cases involving death sentence. 

By striking out Section 303, the court protected the idea of justice, which means to not only punishing someone but also knowing the whole truth behind the act. This case remains as the reminder for everyone that laws must be fair and flexible. It also showed that Constitution is the supreme and stands above all laws, and if law violating basic rights like equality and right to life can be removed by the court itself. 

Mithu v. State of Punjab states to everyone that judges should be allowed to think and they have the power to amend any law violating constitution and should never be forced. Aftermath this case, Section 303 was being removed from the existence of Indian Penal Code, and this judgement marked as an integral example where mandatory punishment is questioned. 

References:

Mithu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473.

2. Indian Penal Code, S 303 (repealed).

3. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Right to Equality.

4. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

5. Supreme Court Judgment – Mithu v. State of Punjab, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1071615.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.