Case Summary: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)

• Title: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 
• Citation: AIR 1980 SC 898; (1980) 2 SCC 684 
• Court: Supreme Court of India 
• Bench: Y.V. Chandrachud (C.J.), A. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.N. Bhagwati, R.S. Sarkaria Date of Judgment: 9 May 1980 
• Author of Majority Opinion: Justice R.S. Sarkaria 
• Type of Case: Criminal Appeal (Capital Punishment) 
• Parties Involved 
• Appellant: Bachan Singh 
• Respondent: State of Punjab 
• Relevant Legal Provisions 

1. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 – Punishment for murder 
2. Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 – Requirement for recording  “special reasons” when imposing death sentence 
3. Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Right to equality 
4. Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Protection of life and personal liberty

Background and Facts of the Case 

• Bachan Singh was previously convicted of murdering his wife and was sentenced to life  imprisonment. 
• After serving his sentence and being released, he began living with his cousin Hukam Singh  and family. 
• A dispute arose, allegedly over domestic issues and housing arrangements. 
• In a brutal and calculated act, Bachan Singh murdered three members of Hukam Singh’s  family with an axe—namely, Hukam Singh’s wife, son, and daughter. 
• He was arrested and charged under Section 302 IPC for multiple counts of murder. The Trial Court convicted him and imposed the death penalty. 
• The conviction and death sentence were confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
• Bachan Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging both his conviction and the  constitutionality of the death penalty under Indian law. 

Issues Before the Court 

• Whether the imposition of the death penalty under Section 302 IPC violates Articles 14 and  21 of the Constitution. 
• Whether Section 302 IPC, read with Section 354(3) of the CrPC, is constitutionally valid. What constitutes “special reasons” under Section 354(3) CrPC to justify a death sentence. 
• Whether the death penalty should be upheld in the specific facts and circumstances of this case. 

Arguments by the Appellant (Bachan Singh) 

1. The death penalty is arbitrary, excessive, and not in conformity with the right to life and  personal liberty under Article 21. 
2. The punishment is discriminatory and unfair, violating Article 14, due to inconsistencies in  how courts apply it. 
3. The sentencing provision under Section 302 IPC does not provide clear guidelines and gives  excessive discretion to judges. 
4. Death is irreversible; if imposed wrongly, it leads to irreparable miscarriage of justice. The purpose of punishment should be reformative, not retributive. 

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Punjab) 

1. The death penalty is a constitutionally permissible punishment and has been retained by  Parliament intentionally. 
2. Section 302 IPC is not mandatory; it provides for either life imprisonment or death, and  judges must record reasons for choosing death (as per Section 354(3) CrPC). 
3. The procedure for sentencing is fair, reasonable, and just, satisfying Article 21. 
4. Certain crimes, such as multiple or brutal murders, are so heinous that the interest of justice  and deterrence demand the maximum penalty. 

Judgment: Majority Opinion (4:1) 

The Supreme Court, by a majority of 4:1, upheld the constitutional validity of the death  penalty and laid down the historic “rarest of rare” doctrine. 

Justice R.S. Sarkaria authored the majority judgment. 

Key Findings: 

• Section 302 IPC is not unconstitutional. It provides a judicially controlled discretion in sentencing, thus not violating Articles 14 or  21. 
• Section 354(3) CrPC is a safeguard. It mandates that special reasons must be recorded for imposing death, making it a limited  exception and not the rule. 
• Right to life (Article 21) is not absolute. The death penalty can be imposed through due process of law, as per the Constitution. Rarest of Rare Doctrine Introduced 
• The Court emphasized that life imprisonment is the rule, and death sentence should only be  awarded in the “rarest of rare cases” where alternative punishment is unquestionably  foreclosed. 

Guiding Principles for Sentencing (Rarest of Rare Test): 

Courts must examine: 

• The nature and gravity of the crime 
• The motive and method of the crime 
• The magnitude of the crime 
• The possibility of reform of the accused 
• The impact on society 
• The decision must be made not only based on the crime, but also considering the criminal and  their circumstances. 

Application to Present Case: 

The murders committed were brutal, premeditated, and involved multiple victims. The Court found no mitigating factors strong enough to outweigh the aggravating ones. Held: The case falls under the “rarest of rare” category. 

Therefore, the death sentence is upheld. 

Dissenting Opinion – Justice Bhagwati 

Justice P.N. Bhagwati dissented from the majority. 

Key Points of Dissent: 

• The death penalty is inhuman, arbitrary, and degrading. 
• Its application is discriminatory, often targeting the poor and marginalised.
• The classification of “rarest of rare” is too vague and subjective, allowing for judicial  arbitrariness. 
• The penalty is irreversible and prone to error. 
• Therefore, he held that Section 302 IPC, to the extent that it allows for capital punishment, is  unconstitutional. 

Final Decision 

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 302 IPC and Section 354(3) CrPC. 

The Court laid down the “rarest of rare” test as the binding standard for awarding the death  penalty. 

The death sentence of Bachan Singh was upheld. 

Significance of the Judgment 

Constitutional Impact 

• This case settled the constitutionality of the death penalty in India. 
• It reinforced that Article 21 permits death penalty only through just, fair and reasonable  procedure. 

“Rarest of Rare” Doctrine – Landmark Legacy 

• This doctrine became the touchstone for capital sentencing in India. 
• It gave judicial structure.