BACHAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB

FACTS

The appellant, had previously been accused and convicted of the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After serving a 14-year prison sentence, he began residing with his cousin. However, tensions arose when his cousin’s wife and children objected to the appellant living in their household.

Tragically, on July 4, 1977, a few days prior to the events in question, the appel committed an atrocious act by using an axe to murder three out of his cousin’s four children. The victims were identified as Desa Singh, Durga Bai, and Veeran Bai. These heinous crimes led to Bachan Singh being charged, tried, and subsequently convicted by the Sessions Court, which sentenced him to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Upon the appellant’s appeal, the High Court upheld the death sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and rejected his appeal. Seeking further recourse, the appellant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on Special Leave, raising the issue of whether the circumstances of his case constituted “special reasons” warranting the imposition of the death penalty, as mandated by Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973.

It is Imperative to note that the aforementioned account portrays a tragic sequence of events with legal implications. The appellant, who had previously been convicted for the murder of his wife, subsequently committed a horrific act by taking the lives of three innocent children, resulting in his conviction and subsequent imposition of the death penalty. The High Court, upon considering the appeal, affirmed the death sentence, leading to Bachan Singh seeking further review from the Supreme Court based on the applicability of “special reasons” under Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973.

ISSUES

1. Does the constitutionality of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which incorporates provisions for capital punishment in cases of murder, conform to the constitutional framework or contravene fundamental principles enshrined therein?
2. Is it feasible to assert that the factual findings uncovered by the lower courts could be deemed as an exceptional basis justifying the imposition of the death penalty, as required under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?
3. Is Article 19 applicable to evaluate the constitutionality of the contested provision in Section 302 of the IPC?
4. Does the disputed clause in Section 302 of the IPC violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

ARGUMENTS

The appeal in this case was first heard in the Supreme Court of India on November 13, 2002. The appellant’s legal team invoked the doctrine of proportionality, drawing on the landmark case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) to argue that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. They contended that the death penalty, as an extreme punishment, should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases where the alternative of life imprisonment would be inadequate.

 The appellant’s counsel referred to the case of Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) to emphasize the importance of the “rarest of rare” doctrine in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty. They argued that this doctrine ensures that the death penalty is not arbitrarily or indiscriminately imposed but is reserved for exceptional cases involving extreme and exceptional circumstances.

These arguments, supported by relevant cases, aimed to challenge the constitutional validity and application of the death penalty in this case, advocating for a more nuanced and restrained approach in determining the appropriateness of capital punishment.

After carefully considering the arguments put forth by the experienced counsel for both parties and thoroughly reviewing this Court’s judgment in the aforementioned matter, I find myself unable to align with the established law.

JUDGEMENT

In this case, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on the constitutionality of the death penalty in India. The judgment was pronounced on May 9, 1980. The case is often cited as a significant milestone in the Indian legal system’s interpretation of the scope and application of the death penalty.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, recognized that the right to life under Article 21 is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. However, it held that the death penalty could be constitutionally valid if it satisfied the test of “rarest of rare” cases. The court stated that capital punishment should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases where the alternative option of life imprisonment would be inadequate and unable to respond to the society’s collective conscience.

The court laid down certain principles to guide the application of the death penalty. It stated that while deciding the punishment, the court must consider the circumstances of the offense as well as the characteristics of the offender. The court also emphasized the need for consistency and uniformity in the imposition of the death penalty.

The judgment in this case did not completely strike down the death penalty but introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine as a requirement for its application. This doctrine has since been followed in subsequent cases to determine whether the death penalty should be imposed.

The judgment in this case has been a subject of extensive debate and discussion among legal scholars, human rights activists, and society at large.It’s worth noting that the concept of “rarest of rare” is subjective and open to interpretation. Different individuals may have varying opinions on what constitutes such cases. Because of this point, I believe that the judgement of the supreme court does not establish proper rule of law.

But for specific reasons, it is imperative to uphold the integrity of the court’s judgment and adhere to the established legal framework. It is superfluous and contrary to the interests of justice to contest the court’s ruling. Therefore, this appeal proves unsuccessful, and it is hereby dismissed.

REFERENCES

https://primelegal.in/2023/04/12/bachan-singh-v-state-of-punjab-rarest-of-rarest-doctine/

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 AIR 1325, ‘Rarest of Rare’ cases

Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab

This article is written by Bhagwat Mahajan of Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla, an intern under Legal Vidhiya