Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which talks about the constitutionality of the capital punishment. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a single judge bench consisting of Justice DG Palekar, Justice SM Sikri, Justice AN Ray, Justice ID Dua and Justice M Hameedullah Beg. 

Facts   

• Background of the Case: 
  • Shivraj Singh, father of Jagbir Singh (cousin of the appellant), was murdered several years before the present offence. 
  • Chhotey Singh was charged with Shivraj Singh’s murder but was later acquitted by the High Court. 
• Ill-feeling and Rivalry: 
  • Due to Shivraj Singh’s murder, hostility developed between Chhotey Singh and the appellant, along with Jagbir Singh. 
  • At the time of Shivraj Singh’s murder, both the appellant and Jagbir Singh were minors, but they had grown up by the time of the present case. 
• Incident Leading to the Murder: 
  • On 9th September, 1969, a quarrel occurred between Jagmohan Singh (appellant) and Jagbir Singh on one side, and Chhotey Singh on the other, regarding irrigation rights. 
  • The dispute was settled at the time, and no further incident occurred. 
• Murder of Chhotey Singh: 
  • On 10th September, 1969, at around 5:00 PM, the appellant and Jagbir Singh hid in a bajra field, armed with a country-made pistol and a lathi, respectively. 
  • When Chhotey Singh passed by, the appellant called him to stop and settle the matter permanently. 
  • Chhotey Singh tried to flee, but the appellant chased him and shot him in the back. 
  • Chhotey Singh ran a short distance before collapsing and dying on the spot. 
• Legal Proceedings and Sentencing: 
  • The Sessions Judge awarded the appellant the death penalty, considering the gravity of the crime. 
  • The High Court upheld the death sentence, stating there were no extenuating circumstances. 
  • The Supreme Court was approached to decide whether to interfere with the sentence. 
  • The sentence of death imposed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court was challenged in appeal by special leave.

Issue Involved  

• Whether the challenge to the death sentence imposed by the High Court can be sustained? 

Observation 

• The Court in this case was posed with the question as to the constitutionality of the death penalty. 
• It was observed by the Court that the framers of the Constitution were aware of the existence of capital punishment as a permissible punishment under the law. 
• These provisions include Article 72 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) which provides for power of President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence "in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death". 
• Debate on Abolition of Death Penalty: 
  • Various studies argue against capital punishment, but they often generalize murders without considering individual motivations. 
  • Some murders are exceptionally brutal or threaten societal stability, necessitating capital punishment as a deterrent and societal condemnation. 
• Legislative History on Efforts to Abolish Death Penalty: 
  • Bills and resolutions for abolishing the death penalty were introduced in the Lok Sabha (1956) and Rajya Sabha (1958, 1961, 1962) but were either rejected or withdrawn. 
  • This indicates that lawmakers and public representatives did not support abolition. 
• Judicial Safeguards Against Wrongful Execution: 
  • A person charged with murder undergoes multiple judicial reviews: 
    • Trial before a Sessions Judge. 
    • Mandatory confirmation of a death sentence by the High Court. 
    • Further appeal to the Supreme Court in certain cases. 
    • Review and mercy petition options at higher levels, including the President and Governor. 
  • These safeguards prevent hasty or arbitrary executions. 
• Judicial Discretion in Sentencing: 
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1980 (IPC) allows judges discretion between death and life imprisonment in cases of murder (Section 302) and waging war against the state (Section 121). 
  • Judges must weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine the appropriate sentence. 
• Categorization of Murder in IPC: 
  • The IPC distinguishes between: 
    • Culpable homicide amounting to murder (severe cases punishable under Section 302). 
    • Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (cases falling under exceptions to Section 300, attracting lesser punishment). 
  • No practical formula exists to redefine murder further, and judicial discretion remains essential. 
• Judicial Discretion and Equality under Article 14: 
  • Sentencing discretion does not violate Article 14 (Right to Equality) because each case has unique facts. 
  • The Supreme Court has ruled that judicial discretion does not amount to arbitrary discrimination.

Conclusion

• Given India’s vast social diversity, varying levels of morality and education, and law enforcement needs, the abolition of the death penalty is not feasible. 
• The legal system ensures procedural fairness while granting judges the necessary discretion to impose death or life imprisonment based on case specifics.