Bachan Singh v State of Punjab

The case of Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) is a pivotal judgement in Indian legal history, as it addresses the constitutionality of the death penalty and establishes the “rarest of rare” doctrine for its application. 

This case, decided by the Supreme Court of India, not only discusses the legality of the death penalty under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but also provides important guidelines for when it should be imposed. The judgement is significant for how it balanced the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution with the need for justice in cases of extreme crime.

This case is central to the discourse on capital punishment in India, as it seeks to limit the use of the death penalty and ensure that it is not arbitrarily applied. By introducing the “rarest of rare” doctrine, Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab has shaped the way courts interpret and impose capital punishment.

Background of Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab

The issue of capital punishment has been contentious in India, as it is the maximum penalty under the law for the most serious crimes. Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab dealt with the question of whether Section 302 of the IPC, which prescribes the death penalty for murder, was constitutional under the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

The case also focused on whether Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates that courts provide special reasons when awarding the death penalty, gave too much discretionary power to judges.

The case stemmed from the brutal murder of three children by Bachchan Singh, a man with a criminal history. Initially convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to death, the case moved through various courts, with the highest court in the land eventually giving its verdict on the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Facts of Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab Case

The facts of Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab are as follows:

• Background of the Accused: Bachchan Singh was a man with a troubled criminal history. He had previously been convicted of the murder of his wife and served 14 years in prison. After his release, he was living with his cousin’s family when the incident occurred.
• The Crime: On July 4, 1977, Bachchan Singh committed the brutal murder of three children from his cousin’s family, using an axe. The murders were carried out in an atrocious manner, and Bachchan Singh was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC, which mandates the death penalty for murder.
• Trial and Appeal: The Sessions Court convicted Bachchan Singh for the murders and sentenced him to death. The decision was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, raising constitutional questions about the death penalty and judicial discretion.

The key legal question in this case was whether the death penalty, as provided in Section 302 of the IPC, violated the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and whether the sentencing procedure outlined in Section 354(3) of the CrPC granted excessive discretion to judges.

Issues Raised

The primary issues raised in Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab were:

• Constitutionality of the Death Penalty: The petitioner argued that the death penalty prescribed under Section 302 of the IPC violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The contention was that no person could be deprived of life except in accordance with the procedure established by law, and that the death penalty amounted to an arbitrary and disproportionate punishment.
• Discretionary Power of Judges in Sentencing: Another issue raised was whether the power of judges, as outlined in Section 354(3) of the CrPC, was too broad. The petitioners contended that this provision gave courts unchecked discretion to impose the death penalty, which could lead to arbitrary or inconsistent sentencing.

Contentions of the Parties

The arguments presented in Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab were as follows:

Contentions of the Petitioner

• Violation of Article 21: The petitioner argued that the death penalty violated the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner, the death penalty is an irreversible punishment and cannot be justified, as it permanently deprives a person of their right to life.
• Proportionality and the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine: The petitioner cited the principle of proportionality and argued that capital punishment should only be applied in cases where life imprisonment is inadequate. The petitioner further argued that the death penalty should be applied only in the “rarest of rare” cases, where the crime committed is of such an extreme nature that life imprisonment would not suffice.
• Excessive Discretion in Sentencing: The petitioner contended that Section 354(3) of the CrPC gave courts too much discretion in sentencing, leading to potential arbitrariness. The argument was that such discretion could result in inconsistent and unfair application of the death penalty.

Contentions of the Respondents

• Deterrence and Retribution: The respondents argued that the death penalty was necessary as a deterrent to prevent heinous crimes. They maintained that it served a retributive function, ensuring justice for the victims and their families.
• Constitutionality of the Death Penalty: The respondents argued that the death penalty was constitutional, as it was prescribed by the legislature and served a legitimate social purpose. They emphasised that capital punishment was not arbitrary but instead based on the gravity of the crime.
• Discretion and Judicial Responsibility: The respondents argued that judicial discretion under Section 354(3) was necessary to ensure that sentences were tailored to the facts of each case. They contended that the discretion provided by the law was not excessive, as judges were required to provide special reasons for awarding the death penalty.

Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab Judgement

The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty and Section 302 of the IPC. However, the Court introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which set a stricter standard for the imposition of the death penalty.

• Upholding Section 302 of the IPC: The Court held that the death penalty, as prescribed under Section 302 of the IPC, was constitutionally valid. It acknowledged that the death penalty was a necessary punishment for the most heinous crimes and that the legislature had the authority to prescribe such a punishment.
• Establishing the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine: The Court introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine, stating that the death penalty should only be imposed in cases where the crime was so brutal and extreme that life imprisonment would be insufficient. This doctrine was designed to prevent the death penalty from being used as a routine punishment for murder and to ensure that it was applied only in exceptional circumstances.
• Discretionary Power Under Section 354(3) of the CrPC: The Court also upheld the discretionary power of judges under Section 354(3) of the CrPC but emphasised that this power must be exercised with great care. The Court stipulated that judges must provide special reasons for awarding the death penalty, and those reasons must be based on the facts and circumstances of the case, including both aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Court in Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab concluded that the death penalty was not unconstitutional but should be applied only in the rarest of rare cases, where it was absolutely necessary to serve the ends of justice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) is a landmark case that significantly influenced the legal framework for capital punishment in India. The Supreme Court’s introduction of the “rarest of rare” doctrine has ensured that the death penalty is only imposed in the most exceptional cases, aligning India’s legal system with both national and international human rights standards.

The judgement continues to have a lasting impact on how courts handle death penalty cases and serves as an important reference point in the ongoing debate over the morality and effectiveness of capital punishment. The case represents a balanced approach, carefully weighing the need for justice with the protection of individual rights, and it remains a cornerstone of India’s criminal jurisprudence.

Researcher: Upasana Borah (4th year student, N.E.F Law College, Guwahati)

Author: Aishwarya Agrawal