What is decided in Jagmohan v. State of UP (1972)?

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty under Indian law and approved judicial discretion between death and life imprisonment in murder cases.

Does temporary loss of life imprisonment choice affect equality under Article 14?

No. Sentencing depends on case facts. Guided judicial discretion does not amount to arbitrary discrimination and so does not violate Article 14.

Which provisions are important for exams?

IPC Section 302 (punishment for murder); Articles 14 & 21 (Constitution); Article 72 (President’s mercy powers). Courts weigh aggravating and mitigating factors.

What safeguards exist against wrongful execution?

Multiple layers: trial, High Court confirmation of death sentence, appeal/review in the Supreme Court, and constitutional mercy powers.

Why did the Court not abolish the death penalty?

Given India’s diversity and some exceptionally brutal crimes, the Court found that retaining capital punishment, with safeguards, serves justice and deterrence.

Jagmohan v. State of UP (1972)

Constitutional Law Capital Punishment IPC § 302 Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India Five-judge bench India ~7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | Publish Date: 04-Mar-2025 | India

CASE_TITLE: Jagmohan v. State of UP (1972) PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: capital punishment, constitutionality, Article 14, Article 21, judicial discretion SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: IPC §302, mercy powers Art. 72, safeguards, sentencing Slug: jagmohan-v-state-of-up-1972

```

Quick Summary

In Jagmohan v. State of UP, the Supreme Court said that the death penalty is constitutional in India. Judges can choose between death and life imprisonment for murder. They must look at all facts, including aggravating and mitigating factors. The Court noted India has strong safeguards: trial, High Court confirmation, Supreme Court review, and mercy powers.

Issues

Core Issue: Can the death sentence awarded and upheld by the High Court be successfully challenged?
Is the death penalty, as provided under Indian law, unconstitutional for violating equality or life and personal liberty?

Rules

IPC § 302 (1860): Punishment for murder — death or life imprisonment; fine.
Constitution of India: Article 14 (equality), Article 21 (life and personal liberty), Article 72(1)(c) (President’s power in death sentence cases).
Judicial Practice: Sentencing rests on guided discretion considering the nature of crime and the offender.

Facts (Timeline)

Old Enmity: Shivraj Singh (father of Jagbir Singh, cousin of the appellant) was murdered earlier. Chhotey Singh was tried but later acquitted.

Rivalry: Hostility grew between Chhotey Singh and the appellant with Jagbir Singh.

Dispute: 09 Sep 1969 — quarrel about irrigation rights; matter was settled then.

Incident: 10 Sep 1969 — appellant and Jagbir lay in wait in a bajra field; appellant shot Chhotey Singh from behind as he tried to flee.

Trial & Sentences: Sessions Judge awarded death; High Court confirmed; the matter reached the Supreme Court by special leave.

Timeline graphic for Jagmohan v. State of UP case

Arguments

Appellant

Death penalty is arbitrary and violates equality and life guarantees.
There is no fixed standard to choose between death and life imprisonment.
Mitigating circumstances were not given adequate weight.

Respondent (State)

Lawmakers kept death penalty after debate; Parliament rejected abolition attempts.
Judges use guided discretion based on facts; this is not arbitrary.
Multiple judicial and constitutional checks prevent wrongful execution.

Judgment

The Supreme Court declined to interfere. It upheld the death sentence and held that capital punishment is constitutionally valid in India. The Court emphasized that sentencing under IPC §302 involves a careful judicial choice between death and life imprisonment, after weighing the crime and the criminal, and examining aggravating and mitigating factors.

Ratio Decidendi

Constitutionality: Capital punishment survives Articles 14 and 21 when imposed through fair procedure and guided discretion.
Guided Discretion: Courts consider the nature of the offence and the offender; no one-size formula is possible.
Safeguard Layers: Trial, High Court confirmation, Supreme Court review/remedies, and constitutional mercy powers act as checks.

Why It Matters

This case is an early and important authority on the death penalty in India. It supports judicial discretion and underlines that strong safeguards surround capital sentencing.

Key Takeaways

Death penalty is constitutionally valid when due process is followed.
Sentencing demands a balance of aggravating and mitigating factors.
Multiple review layers and mercy powers reduce risk of error.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Debate–Discretion–Double Check.”

Debate: Parliament debated and retained capital punishment.
Discretion: Judge weighs crime and criminal under IPC §302.
Double Check: Confirmation, appeals, and mercy powers act as safeguards.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether the death sentence, confirmed by the High Court, should be set aside; and whether capital punishment violates constitutional guarantees.

Rule

IPC §302; Articles 14 & 21 (fair, non-arbitrary process); Article 72(1)(c) mercy power; judicial standards on sentencing discretion.

Application

The murder was deliberate and brutal. Courts below weighed circumstances and confirmed death. Safeguards and procedural fairness were followed.

Conclusion

Challenge fails. Death penalty stands; capital punishment is constitutional within a fair, guided sentencing process.

Glossary

Aggravating Factors: Circumstances that make the crime worse, e.g., cruelty or planning.
Mitigating Factors: Circumstances that lessen blame, e.g., young age, no past crimes.
Mercy Powers: Constitutional powers of the President (Art. 72) and Governor (Art. 161) to commute or remit sentences.