Site navigation

Under Section 104 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a person who, being under sentence of…

In Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983), a five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that a mandatory sentence of death for murder committed by a person under a…

Choose your answer

Under Section 104 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a person who, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder is punishable with death or imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, rather than a mandatory death sentence. Which landmark Supreme Court judgment held that prescribing a mandatory death sentence for murder by a life-convict is unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer D

In Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983), a five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that a mandatory sentence of death for murder committed by a person under a sentence of life imprisonment (formerly Section 303 IPC) is arbitrary and unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21 because it completely excludes judicial discretion in sentencing. Reflecting this constitutional principle, Section 104 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 prescribes punishment of either death or imprisonment for life (meaning the remainder of that person's natural life). Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh laid down the 'rarest of rare' doctrine for discretionary capital sentencing, while Santa Singh concerned the hearing on sentence.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic