Case Summary: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

INTRODUCTION 

The 1980 case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab is a landmark in Indian legal history, as it introduced the significant principle of the “rarest of rare” doctrine for the application of the death penalty. This case involved Bachan Singh, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai, and Veeran Bai. After the Punjab High Court upheld his death sentence, Bachan Singh appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed his request for Special Leave to hear the case.

Bachan Singh was found guilty of killing three people—Desa Singh, Durga Bai, and Veeran Bai—and sentenced to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court affirmed his death sentence. Bachan Singh and other prisoners filed a special leave appeal with the Supreme Court. In this appeal, he inquired about the constitutionality of the death sentence under section 302 of the IPC and the sentencing process described in Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section says that judges must give special reasons for giving the death penalty.

Bachan Singh was involved in the brutal murders of his wife and children, which led to his initial conviction and death sentence.ntence.The appellant’s major point of contention was that the death sentence infringed basic rights provided by the Indian Constitution, notably Articles 14 (Right to Equality), (Protection of certain rights including freedom of expression, etc.), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).He contended that the death penalty was arbitrary and lacked adequate procedural protections, rendering it illegal.

• CASE TITLE: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
• CITATION: AIR 1980 SC 898, (1980) 2 SCC 684
• COURT: Supreme Court of India
• BENCH: Y.Y.Chandrachud (CJI), A. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.N. Bhagwati, and R.S. Sarkaria, JJ.
• DATE OF JUDGMENT: 9 May, 1980
• RELEVANT STATUES /KEY PROVISIONS: 

1. Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
   
2. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
   
3. Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
   
   

BRIEF FACTS 

Bachan Singh was convicted of the murder of his wife and sentenced to 14 years in jail under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After serving his sentence, he was released from prison. He went to live with his brother, Hukam Singh, and his family. However, his presence was not welcomed by the family, particularly by his brother’s wife and children.

Bachan Singh assaulted the members of the family of his brother with an axe on the evening of July 4, 1977.  He killed his brother’s daughters, Veeran and Durga Bai, as well as his son, Desa Singh.  He also attackeVidya Bai, Hukam Singh’s other daughter.  Bachan Singh left the crime site following the attack, dropping the axe as family members awoke to the victims’ screams.

On appeal, the High Court confirmed the death sentence. Bachan Singh challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty in the Supreme Court, claiming that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

ISSUES INVOLVED 

• Is the death punishment under Section 302 IPC illegal, as it violates Articles 14 and 21?
• Is the sentencing procedure under Section 354(3) CrPC, which needs “special reasons” to give the death penalty, constitutionally valid? 
• In what circumstances might the death penalty be used instead of life imprisonment?

Issue Raised

The case raises a specific challenge about the legality of the death penalty in India.One important question before the court was whether Bachan Singh’s case met the need for “special reasons” to impose the death penalty, as stipulated in Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

This section emphasized that the court must provide strong and special reasons when deciding to award the death penalty.The court had to evaluate whether the death sentence violated the right to life provided by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Additionally, the case went beyond procedural concerns and raised important constitutional questions. This brought up the critical issue of how to balance the severity of capital punishment with the fundamental right to life, leading to deeper discussions on whether the death penalty was constitutionally valid.

ARGUMENTS 

Plaintiff’s arguments

The plaintiff claimed that the death sentence is harsh, barbaric, and degrading punishment that violates the right to life and personal liberty granted by Article 21.   He argued that the death sentence is fundamentally arbitrary and capricious since it relies primarily on the judges’ discretion and lacks set criteria or principles. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that existing procedural safeguards were insufficient to ensure that the death sentence was only used in rare circumstances, potentially leading to mistakes of justice and violations of basic rights.

Defendants’ Arguments

The State defended the death penalty’s legitimacy, claiming that it is a vital deterrence against the most egregious crimes and an essential tool for upholding law and order in society. The State maintained that the death penalty is reserved for the “rarest of rare” circumstances, in which the crime committed is so horrible that no other punishment would suffice. 

The defendant emphasized that the procedural safeguards delineated in Section 354(3) of the CrPC, which require courts to document specific justifications for imposing the death penalty, offer sufficient protection against capricious sentencing and ensure the punishment is executed appropriately and equitably.

JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court maintained the constitutional legitimacy of the death punishment in India. India. The Court decided that capital punishment is not per se violative of Articles 14 and 21. However, it put out the notion of “rarest of rare cases” as a guiding principle for giving the death penalty. The Court highlighted that a death sentence should be issued only when life imprisonment is inadequate, and exceptional grounds must be noted.

The Supreme Court maintained the legitimacy of the death sentence under Section 302 of the IPC and confirmed the process of sentencing under Section 354(3) of the CrPC.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Justice R.S. Sarkaria gave the majority ruling, which determined that the death sentence did not breach India’s Constitution.

The Court held that Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, authorizes the termination of life through a legally recognized process.

 The majority agreed that the “rarest of rare” standards, which limit the use of the death sentence to the most serious situations, are an adequate protection against excessive punishment.

The Court also stated that Section 354(3) of the CrPC, which requires judges to record special reasons for imposing the death penalty, ensures that the decision is made after a thorough examination of all relevant factors, thus prohibiting capricious or arbitrary imposition of the death sentence.

The death sentence is constitutional, but it should only be used in the most extreme instances, after considering mitigating and aggravating factors.

FINAL DECISION 

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the legality of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which authorizes the death sentence, and Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court ruled that the six essential rights guaranteed by Article 19(1) are not absolute. These rights are subject to limitations since everyone in society must exercise their rights without infringing on the rights of others. The court further highlighted that in order for Article 19 Clauses (2) through (6) to be effective, the state must be allowed to impose reasonable limits on these rights. The court emphasized that the state’s right to establish these reasonable boundaries is an integral component of Article 19 Clauses (2) through (6).

Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) requires judges to demonstrate “special reasons” for inflicting the death sentence. This means that such a punishment must be justified by obvious and specific circumstances that are exceedingly harsh, as opposed to situations resulting in life imprisonment. The Court established the “rarest of rare cases” criteria for imposing the death penalty. It underlined that honoring human dignity entails avoiding the death penalty unless absolutely required. The Court declared that the death sentence should only be used when no other options are available. As a result, it supported the constitutionality of death penalty legislation.

• Death penalty was upheld as constitutionally valid.
  
• Bachan Singh’s death sentence was confirmed.
  
• The doctrine of “rarest of rare cases” was formally introduced into Indian criminal jurisprudence.
  

OBITER DICTA

The Court stated that judges must assess the circumstances of both the offense and the criminal before imposing the death penalty, ensuring that human dignity and fundamental values are protected.

• The death penalty is an exception rather than the rule.
• The Court must evaluate not only the offense but also the criminal’s circumstances. 
• Any penalty must respect human dignity and protect constitutional ideals.
• If life in prison is adequate, then the death penalty should not be applied.

CONCLUSION 

Finally, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but put rigorous conditions on its implementation. By establishing the “rarest of the rare” doctrine, the court assured that the death sentence would only be used in the most extreme cases when no other penalty would be suitable. This approach emphasized the intentional and limited use of the death sentence, aiming to balance justice, humanity, and fairness.