Bachan Singh v.

State of Punjab
Dated – 16th August 1982
Court – The Supreme Court of India
Bench – Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice A. Gupta, Justice N. Untwalia, Justice P.N
Bhagwati and Justice R. Sarkaria

The decision given by the Supreme Court in this case is welcomed as one of the
landmark judgements on the issue of death penalty. Whenever a death
sentence is imposed on someone, that sentence grabs the attention of the
whole nation. In this case also, the whole nation was eagerly waiting for the
judgement of the Supreme Court, when the court in its majority decision
observed that Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 354(3) of Criminal
Procedure code are valid on the touchstone of constitutionality.
In this case, the Indian judiciary has made it clear what they think about the
death sentence, stating that it should only be used in “rarest of rare”
circumstances. This Supreme Court viewpoint was strongly in favour of
minimizing the use of capital punishment to punish criminals. In essence, the
death sentence is an exception to the rule of life imprisonment.
The interpretation of the last half of the dictum – ‘that ought not to be done
except in the rarest of rare instances when the alternative option is absolutely
foreclosed’ is one aspect of the doctrine of “Rarest of Rare” that requires
considerable examination. In this case it was suggested that the death
punishment should be awarded only when the judges feel that it is the last
resort, as the alternative punishment is not sufficient enough.
The “Rarest of Rare” doctrine was proposed by the judges because at first
glance, the death penalty appears to have a greater deterrent effect on
ordinary people than any other form of punishment. Furthermore, once a
death penalty is imposed, it is irreversible, even if new evidence is discovered
that has the potential to change the decision. Furthermore, this doctrine is
provided to reduce the number of cases in which the death penalty can be
awarded. As a result, in this case, the death penalty is viewed as an exception
rather than the rule.

1
Facts of the case

1. The appellant Bachan Singh had earlier been convicted of his wife’s murder
and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. He was released after serving his sentence and spent around six
months with his cousin Hukam Singh and his family.

2. The appellant’s living at Hukam Singh’s apartment was questioned by

Hukam Singh’s family members, including his wife and son. After dinner on
the night of the crime, i.e., July 4, 1977, the family went to bed. The
sleeping arrangement was such that in which Hukam Singh’s three
daughters, Durga Bai, Veeran Bai, and Vidya Bai, went to sleep in the inner
courtyard, while the appellant along with Hukam Singh, and Desa Singh
went to sleep in the outer courtyard.

3. At around midnight, Vidya Bai saw that the appellant was inflicting axe
blows on the face of her sister, Veeran Bai when she was awakened by the
alarm. When she tried to stop him, the appellant attacked her with the axe
on the face and ear, making her unconscious.

4. Later, after hearing the shriek, Diwan Singh awoke from his slumber and
saw the appellant strike Desa Singh with the axe. In order to arouse Gulab
Singh, who was sleeping at a short distance from there, he raised an alarm.
When both of them saw the appellant with an axe in Desa Singh’s face, they
both rushed to stop him. When the witnesses raised an alarm and the
appellant noticed them approaching him, he dropped the axe and fled.
Diwan Singh and Gulab Singh pursued him but were unsuccessful in
apprehending him.

5. The appellant was later tried and found guilty by the Sessions Court of
murdering three people, including Desa Singh (Hukam Singh’s son), Durga
Bai and Veeran Bai (Hukam Singh’s daughters), and injuring Vidya Bai
(Hukam Singh’s another daughter) in the courtyard of Hukam Singh’s house
at about midnight, and was sentenced to death.

2
6. The Death sentence imposed by the Trial Court was upheld by the High
Court on appeal. Also, the injuries on Vidya Bai’s body were deemed
inhumane by both the Trial Court and the High Court.

7. Bachan Singh then filed the special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, in
which the question was raised regarding the presence of “special reasons”
in the facts of the case, which are necessary for awarding the death
sentence according to Section 354(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issues

 Whether death penalty provided for the offence of murder in Section 302,
Indian Penal Code, 1860 is unconstitutional?

 Whether the Facts found by the lower Courts would be considered

“special reason” for awarding the death penalty as is required under
Section 354(3) CRPC?

Related provisions

 Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the
alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years,
the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the
case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence.

 Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code

Punishment for murder. —Whoever commits murder shall be punished
with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

3
Appellants Arguments
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that the imposition of
death penalty under Section 302 of IPC, read with Section 354(3) of the CrPC
was arbitrary and unreasonable because
(a) it was cruel and inhuman, disproportionate and excessive,
(b) it was totally unnecessary and did not serve any social purpose or advance
any constitutional value and
(c) the discretion conferred on the court to award death penalty was not
guided by any policy or principle laid down by the legislature but was wholly
arbitrary.

Respondents Arguments

The leaned Counsel appearing for the state argued that the question of
constitutional validity of the death penalty has stood concluded by the decision
of a Constitution Bench of five Judges in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR
1973 SC 947) and it could not therefore be allowed to be re-agitated.
It was also submitted that (a) death penalty was neither cruel or inhuman,
neither disproportionate nor excessive, (b) it did serve a social purpose
inasmuch as it fulfils two penological goals namely, denunciation by the
community and deterrence and (c) that the judicial discretion for the purpose
of guiding the exercise of its discretion in this punitive area.

Supreme Court’s Observation

1. The Supreme Court observed that the granting of the death sentence as an
alternative punishment for murder under Section 302 is not irrational or
contrary to the public interest. It does not contravene either the letter or
the spirit of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It satisfies the
requirements of the Constitution. Furthermore, Article 21 and other

4
 provisions of the constitution clearly imply that the founding fathers
recognized the state’s right to deprive a person of life or personal liberty in
line with fair, just, and reasonable procedures established by legitimate
legislation.

2. The Supreme Court further also relied on the judgments of Jagmohan Singh
vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, in which the question of the
constitutionality of the death penalty was addressed by the Supreme Court
for the first time, and Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.

3. In the case of Jagmohan, it was decided that the death penalty does not
abridge all of the freedoms protected by Article 19(1), and that it does not
violate Article 14 of the Constitution because judges have unrestricted and
uncontrolled authority to impose either capital punishment or life
imprisonment. As a result, the death penalty became more of an exception
than a rule. In case of Rajendra Prasad, it was determined that when a
person is sentenced to death, he loses his right to life, thereby infringing on
his fundamental right.

4. The Supreme Court while dealing with the expression ‘special reasons’ as
stated in Section 354(3) of the CrPC means exceptional reasons owing to
the grave nature of the crime. The Apex Court laid down the doctrine of
‘rarest of the rare cases’ in awarding the death penalty. Life imprisonment
is the rule, and the death sentence is awarded as an exception for those
convicted for murder. Exercise of discretion under Section 354(3) of CrPC,
1973 would be exceptional. The death penalty would be awarded only in
crimes that shake the collective conscience of society. The imposition of the
death sentence should only be in the rarest of rare cases.

Dissenting opinion

5. Justice PN Bhagwati was of the view that Section 302 of the IPC in so far as
it provides for the imposition of the death penalty as an alternative to a life
sentence is ultra vires. It is unconstitutional and void since it is an
infringement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and no legislative

5
 guidelines are laid down as to when life should be permitted to be
extinguished by the imposition of the death sentence.

6. Another dissenting opinion was that it is difficult to answer the question of

whether the death penalty serves any penological purpose. It is a difficult,
complex, and intractable issue. There has been significant discourse on the
purposes of the death penalty and whether it serves the purpose of
deterrence. A large proportion of people, including sociologists, legislators,
jurists, judges, and administrators, from the length and breadth of the
country as well as the world, still have adverse opinions towards the
necessity of imposing capital punishment.

Judgement

The Supreme Court bench of Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice A. Gupta, Justice
N. Untwalia, Justice P.N Bhagwati and Justice R. Sarkaria dismissed the appeal
in accordance with the majority opinion. It was held that the provision of the
death penalty as an alternative punishment for the offence of murder under
Section 302 of the IPC, in so far as it prescribes the death sentence; as well as
the constitutionality of Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973, is neither
unreasonable nor is it against the public interest. It is constitutionally valid and
does not violate the letter nor the ethos of Article 19 of the Constitution.

Guidelines Provided by the Bench

1. Except in the gravest cases of extreme culpability, there is no need to opt

for the sentence of death penalty.

2. Before providing the sentence of death penalty, the judge should consider
the circumstances of the crime along with the circumstances of the
offender.

6
3. It was stated by the bench that “life imprisonment is the rule, whereas
death sentence is the exception.” Therefore, we can say that, after looking
at the circumstances of the case, the death penalty should be given only in
those cases, where even the penalty of life imprisonment seems inadequate