Scope and Limits of Judicial Discretion in Sentencing Life Convicts for Murder

Abstract

This research paper examines the evolution of the concept concerning the punishment for murder committed by a life convict. Along with this, we will also take a look on definition of “lifetime imprisonment”. This will lead us to power of discretion of judges while delivering judgements. Historically, section 303 of IPC has been struck down in Mithu v. State of Punjab due to unconstitutional principle by violating Article Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by denying judicial discretion and treating unequally for the same offence. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 introduced Section 104 , seen as an improvised version of IPC by expanding the discretion power of judges by the inclusion of life imprisonment. This paper argues that the binary nature of this discretion creates an illusion of choice. Furthermore, at its core paper interacts with the distinction of the punishment for murder committed by a lifetime convict under “rarest of rare” doctrine as established in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab . By giving the discretion to judges for the life imprisonment dilutes the gravity of the “rarest of rare” doctrine, under section 104 of BNS. The paper concludes that Section 104 requires further legislative refinement to introduce sentencing frameworks that balance deterrence, proportionality and individualized justice.

Keywords: Judicial Discretion, Life Convicts, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 104, Rarest of Rare Doctrine, Inequality.

Saksham Raj_Research paper_(week 4) - Saksham Raj.pdf

Download PDF • 410KB