BACHAN SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB

CASE NAME: BACHAN SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB

Court:  Supreme Court of India

Citation: (1982)3SCC24, (1983)1SCR145A

Author: R.S. Sarkaria

Bench: Y.V. Chandrachud, N.L. Untwalia, P.N. Bhagwati, R.S. Sarkaria, A.C. Gupta

Judgment Date: 9 May 1980

Case No. Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1979

Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Plaintiff: Bachan Singh

Defendant: State of Punjab

Provisions involved: Article 14, Article 19, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

ABSTRACT

Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab is a landmark judgement in which the honorable Supreme Court vindicated the constitutional validity of the death penalty but restricted its application to the rarest of rare cases. Bachan Singh was convicted for multiple murders, including the murder of his wife, and sentenced to death, but he challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty under section 302 of the IPC on the grounds that it breaches Article 14,19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The bone of contention in the case is whether the death penalty under section 302 of the IPC violates Article 21. The case deals with the rarest of rare doctrine, the guiding principle for awarding the death penalty. This case showcases a turning point in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence and remains the foundation for aggravating and mitigating factors to guide courts in capital punishment cases. While the Bachan Singh case reinforces the principle of capital punishment, but only when life imprisonment seems to be a less severe punishment insuring justice.

INTRODUCTION

It can be said that the case is well known and a landmark judgement credited with developing the jurisprudence on the death penalty. The case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab clarifies the issues related to the rarest of rare provision. The plaintiff of that case was convicted of the murder of his own family members; the motive can be a property dispute the murder was done by the plaintiff in such a brutal manner for which he was awarded for death penalty. The plaintiff of the case murdered four persons and even after doing such brutal activity he was challenging his death sentence before the supreme court, stating that he has right to life which is the fundamental provision of the Constitution of India. But the honorable court of law was in the favor that it violated the principle of human dignity and was cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.

HISTORY OF DEATH PENALTY

The history of death penalty in India can be traced back to the ancient times, reflecting the religious influence and societal norms, yet over the period underlying reasoning behind capital punishment has advanced and is on constant progression. Even the ancient period texts like Manu Smriti were in favor of imposing capital punishment. Another testament for the same provision is the Artha Shastra of Chanakya which prescribed capital punishment for heinous crimes. Whereas, in the British colonial period many changes were implemented in the Indian legal framework, as in IPC, 1860 for certain offences capital punishment was prescribed. The same was used as a mechanism for political repression and specially against freedom fighters and dissenters.

PRINCIPLES INVOLVING IN THE CASE

This case deals with various principles of law which govern the provision of death penalty and basic principles of life. Let’s discuss each one of them.

1. ARTICLE 14: Equality before law

The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

This article is divided into two parts:

Equality before the Law: This part of the article indicates that all are to be treated equally in the eyes of law. This is a negative concept as it implies the absence of any privilege in favor of a person. This is the substantive part of the article.

Equal Protection of the Laws: This part means that the same law will be applied to all the people equally across the society. This is a positive concept as it expects a positive action from the state. This is a procedural part of Article 14.

2. ARTICLE 19: All citizens shall have the right-

(a) to freedom of speech and expressions;

(b) to assemble peacefully and without arms;

(c) to form association or unions or co-operative societies;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

         3.ARTICLE 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

         4.SECTION 354(3) in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with 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.

          5.SECTION 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Punishment for murder –

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

BACKGROUND OF CASE

There are some cases Jagmohan Singh vs. State of U.P in that case also the issue involved that whether the death sentence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 be declare unconstitutional due to its violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 to (g). In that case Supreme court held death penalty did not violate Article 14,19 and 21 of Indian Constitution.

Another case was Rajendra Prasad vs. State of U.P in this case the honorable court of law held that unless it was shown that the individual is terrible and continuing threat to social security, capital punishment would not be justified. In which justice Krishna Iyer said that the death penalty be inflicted in the case of three categories of criminals.

1. White collar offences.
2. For social offences.
3. The person who threat the society, that is a seasoned killer.

• The Crime: On July 4, 1977, Bachan 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 Bachan Singh was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC, which mandates the death penalty for murder.
• Trial and Appeal: The Sessions Court convicted Bachan 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.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Previously, under section 302 of the IPC Bachan Singh was committed for the murder of his wife, which lead to an imprisonment for 14 years. Thereafter he began residing with his cousin, Hukum Singh and his family but later, the appellant that is Bachan Singh committed an atrocious act by murdering three out of four children of Hukum Singh with an axe

Hence, he was again convicted for the offence of committing the murder of his cousin’s children namely, Desa Singh, Durga Bai, and Beeran Bai by the session court. Death penalty was inflicted on him under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Against the death penalty he appealed to the Panjab and Haryana high court, but the high court rejected this appeal and upheld death sentence.   

Moreover, he appeals the supreme court and raise the question of whether the facts of the case would fall under the ambit of the ‘Special reasons’ under section 354(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

The issues primarily raised in the case Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab are as follows

1. Whether prescribing capital punishment for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, contravene the constitution?
2. Whether sentencing procedure stipulated in section 354(3) of the Crpc 1973, is unconstitutional as so for as it bests the courts with undirect and untrampled power and allows death sentence to the in fore arbitrarily and individual found guilty of any offence punishable with death or life imprisonment?

Contentions of the Petitioner

• Infringement 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.

Contentions of the Respondents

• Repression 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 Capital Punishment: The respondents argued that the death penalty was constitutional, as it was prescribed by the legislature and served a legitimate social purpose. They emphasized that capital punishment was not arbitrary but instead based on the gravity of the crime.
• Judicial Prerogative 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
• 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

The issue of capital punishment has been contentious in India, as it is the maximum penalty under the law for the most serious crimes. Bachan 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.

Judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

The Supreme court, with the dissenting opinion, had dismissed the appeal. The court dismissed the challenge to the constitutionality of section 302 of the IPC in so far as the constitutionality of Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973.

The court stated that the provision of the death sentence is only an alternative to other punishment prescribed for murder under section 302 of IPC, and cannot be considered unreasonable and not in the public interest since the parliament had already taken this into consideration while revising the Code of 1898, eventually replacing it with the CrPC, 1973. The court did not hold the sentence of death penalty as unconstitutional but established the doctrine of the rarest of the rare, wherein only cases falling under rarest of rare category could be punished with a death sentence, and that too only after the courts provide special reasons for such punishment.

The court also laid down the aggravating and mitigating circumstances that must be considered by the judges while granting a death sentence, emphasizing the need to assign proportionate weight to both elements.

Judgement Analysis

The Supreme Court of India declared the death penalty constitutional but established the “rarest of rare” principle. This means that the death penalty should only be applied in extremely exceptional cases where life imprisonment would be clearly insufficient, and death is deemed the only fitting punishment.

The court emphasized considering various factors, such as. the nature of the crime, the offender’s circumstances, and societal impact, before imposing the death penalty. This landmark decision marked a shift from previous practices, ensuring a more individualized and thoughtful approach to capital punishment in the Indian legal system. Notably, Bachan Singh’s sentence was commuted to life imprisonment because of this judgment.

Dissenting Opinion

The rule of law penetrates the entire fabric of the Indian Constitution. It does not include arbitrariness. Article 14 acts as a guarantee against arbitrariness and prohibits state action, whether legislative or executive, that suffers from a high-level arbitrariness.

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. Justice PN Bhagwati concluded his dissenting opinion with quote of Bernard Shaw which remarked that “Criminals do not die by the hands of the law. They die by the hands of other men. Assassination on the Scaffold is the worst form of assassination because there it is invested with the approval of society. Murder and capital punishment are not opposites that cancel one another but similar that breed their kind.” Further he stated that it was the Father of the Nation who said, reaffirming what Prince Satyavan said on capital punishment in Shanti Parva of Mahabharata that “destruction of individuals can never be a virtuous act”. He stated “I share this sentiment because I regard men as an embodiment of divinity, and I am therefore morally against death penalty. But my dissent is based not upon any ground of morality or ethics but is founded on constitutional issues, for  as I shall presently show, death penalty does not serve any social purpose or advance constitutional value and is totally  arbitrary and unreasonable so as to be violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 of the constitution.” According to him no legislative guidelines are laid down as to when life should be permitted to be extinguished by the imposition of the death sentence.

The Supreme court with the majority opinion, dismissed the appeal. It was held that the provision of the death penalty as an alternative punishment for the death penalty as well as the constitutional validity of section 354(3) neither unreasonable nor is it against the public interest. It is constitutionally valid and does not violate the provisions of Article 19 of the constitution.

Conclusion

The category of rarest of the rare is always evolving in this case because the case is related to the criminal stream, so the case has the landmark judgement. In present context, Nirbhaya case violated collective conscience and clearly fell under the scope of this doctrine. However, this doctrine is quite arbitrary, subjective, and discriminatory.

The main objective of courts is and should always be focused on eliminating crime rather than just punishing criminals. The primary focus should be on reformation in cases where it is possible, and punishment should be given to achieve the goal of maintaining an orderly society. There needs to be a balance between the rights of convicted persons and victims to ensure the restoration of peace and prevent future crimes. The present case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab is a landmark Supreme Court judgement on the constitutionality of the death penalty in India. It marked the entry of the rarest of the rare doctrine, in the Indian Judicial System, which has since served as a precedent in many cases. Imposition of death penalty should be meticulous, considering nature of the case being dealt, leading to the necessity of creating sufficient protocols.