Authored By: Vaishnavi Bane
Thakur Ramnarayan College of Law, Mumbai University
Case Title & Citation:
Case Title: Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980)
Citation: AIR 1980 SC 898; (1980) 2 SCC 684.
Court Name & Bench:
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Constitutional Bench of five judges—Justices Y.V. Chandrachud, A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.N. Bhagwati (dissent), and R.S. Sarkaria.
Date of Judgment:
Date: 9th May 1980.
Parties Involved:
Appellant: Bachan Singh.
Respondent: State of Punjab.
Facts of the Case:
Bachan Singh, after a previous murder conviction and 14 years in prison, was released and stayed with his cousin’s family.
On 4 July 1977, he murdered three individuals (Desa Singh, Durga Bai, and Veeran Bai) from his cousin’s family using an axe.
He was convicted and sentenced to death by the Sessions Court; the High Court upheld this verdict.
Issues Raised:
Is the death penalty for murder (Section 302 IPC) unconstitutional?
Is the sentencing procedure under Section 354(3) CrPC unconstitutional for allowing arbitrary judicial discretion between life and death sentences?
Arguments of the Parties:
For Bachan Singh: The death penalty violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 (equality, freedom, life) of the Constitution. The sentencing process is arbitrary and lacks procedural safeguards.
For State of Punjab: Capital punishment is constitutional and necessary for severe cases to deter crime and protect society. Sentencing discretion, guided by statute, prevents arbitrariness.
Judgment / Final Decision: (Majority, 4:1)
Supreme Court Verdict: Upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty under Section 302 IPC and Section 354(3) CrPC.
It held that the death penalty does not violate Articles 14, 19, or 21, since it is prescribed by law and imposed only after due procedure.
Introduced the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine: Death penalty may only be imposed where the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
Appeal: Dismissed; death sentence confirmed.
Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi:
The death penalty is not per se unconstitutional. Article 21’s “right to life” may be curtailed by “just, fair, and reasonable procedure” established by law.
Section 354(3) CrPC requires judges to record special reasons for imposing death, restricting arbitrary or routine application.
The “rarest of rare” standard was established to ensure careful, individualized sentencing considering both the crime’s brutality and the offender’s background.
Dissent (Justice P.N. Bhagwati)
Held the death penalty unconstitutional.
Declared it arbitrary, discriminatory (violating Article 14), and cruel (violating Article 21).
Warned of inconsistency in sentencing due to lack of objective standards.
Conclusion:
The judgment struck a balance between societal protection, justice, and fundamental rights, subject to one dissenting opinion (Justice Bhagwati) that argued for complete abolition. The case led to a dramatic restriction and standardization in the use of the death penalty, guaranteeing greater judicial discipline, transparency, and rights protections in Indian criminal law.
