The Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab is a landmark decision that played an important role in transforming the approach of the country to the death penalty. The Supreme Court addressed legality of capital punishment and established the doctrine of ‘rarest of the rare’. The doctrine set out guidelines when the death penalty should be imposed. The Bachan Singh case 1980 highlighted the importance of individualized sentencing and considering the circumstances of the offender . For a deeper understanding of important judicial decisions, explore Landmark Judgements.

Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab Overview

The Bachan Singh versus State of Punjab case is a significant legal ruling that played a crucial role in defining the guidelines for awarding the death penalty in India . Take a look at the Case Overview, including details such as the petitioner, respondent, bench members, date and legal provisions involved, in the table below.

Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab Historical Context and Facts

Download Free PDF Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab 1980

The case at hand revolves around the constitutionality of the death penalty. The case of Bachan Singh v State of Punjab established the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare case’. The following are the brief facts of Bachan Singh case -

Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab Facts

Bachan Singh was convicted for murder of his wife and had been sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). After serving his punishment, he was released from prison. He moved to live with his brother, Hukam Singh and his family. However, his stay was not welcomed by the family, especially by his brother’s wife and son.

The Murder Incident

Bachan Singh attacked members of his brother’s family with an axe on the night of 4th July, 1977. He murdered his brother’s daughters namely, Veeran Bai and Durga Bai and his son Desa Singh. He also injured Hukam Singh’s other daughter, Vidya Bai. Bachan Singh fled the crime scene after the attack and dropped the axe as the family members woke up to the shrieks of the victims.

Conviction and Sentence by the Sessions Court

The Sessions Court convicted Bachan Singh was convicted for the murders of three people and the injuries inflicted on others. The Court sentenced him to death under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Sessions Court Bachan Singh appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He challenged his conviction and sentence granted by the Sessions Court. However, the High Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the decision of the Sessions Court. Following this, Bachan Singh filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of Indian Constitution.

Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab Issue addressed 

The landmark judgment in Bachan Singh versus State of Punjab case summary laid the foundation for the “rarest of the rare” doctrine, which continues to guide the use of the death penalty in India. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment, but restricted its application to only the gravest cases, where no alternative sentence would meet the ends of justice . This ruling marked a crucial balance between law, justice and human rights.

Constitutional Validity of the Death Penalty

The Court in the Bachan Singh case ruled that the death penalty is constitutionally valid, affirming that it does not violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures the right to life. However, the Court stressed that this right can only be curtailed by a fair, just and reasonable legal process.

Introduction of the “Rarest of the Rare” Doctrine

The “rarest of the rare” principle emerged from this case. The Court clarified that capital punishment should not be routine. It must be used only in the most exceptional circumstances—where the crime is so brutal or the societal impact so grave that no lesser punishment would suffice . This doctrine was meant to prevent arbitrary and excessive use of the death penalty thereby instilling caution and fairness in sentencing .

Emphasis on Individualized Sentencing

A significant outcome of the case was the focus on individualized sentencing . The Court held that judges must examine the specific context of the crime, consider the offender’s background, and weigh factors like mental health, age and possibility of reform . This ensures the punishment is not only proportionate to the crime but also humane.

Deterrence and Retribution in Capital Punishment

The judgment also engaged with the deterrence vs. retribution debate. The Court recognized that while deterring future crimes is a legitimate objective, the punishment should also reflect the gravity and cruelty of the offense. Thus, justice demands proportionality, not vengeance.

Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab Legal Provisions

In the matter of Bachan Singh v State of Punjab which was a landmark judgment that shaped the jurisprudence on the death penalty in India. In Bachan Singh versus the State of Punjab the Supreme Court introduced the rarest of rare doctrine to restrict its application. The key legal provisions examined in this case include:

1. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Now Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023): Punishment for Murder

Section 302 (Now Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) states that “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” The Petitioner in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab challenged the death penalty’s constitutionality and argued that it was arbitrary and violated fundamental rights.

2. Article 14 of Indian Constitution: Right to Equality

Article 14 of Indian Constitution ensures “Equality before the law and equal protection of the laws for all individuals.” In Bachan Singh case 1980 it was argued that the sentencing discretion between life imprisonment and the death penalty led to arbitrariness infringes Article 14 of Constitution. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument and stated that judicial discretion is guided by well-defined principles and prevents arbitrary application of the law.

3. Article 19 of Indian Constitution: Right to Freedom 

Article 19 (1) of Indian Constitution guarantees various freedoms, such as speech, assembly, movement and profession, subject to reasonable restrictions. In Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, the Petitioner contended that capital punishment infringed the fundamental freedoms under Article 19.

4. Article 21 of Indian Constitution: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The main issue in the Bachan Singh case 1980 was whether the capital punishment violated Article 21 of Indian Constitution. The Court stated that the death penalty is constitutional if awarded through a fair procedure.

5. Section 354 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Language and Content of Judgement

Section 354 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code (Now Section 393 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) states that “When a conviction is for an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, the judgment shall record special reasons for awarding the death penalty.”

The Supreme Court in Bachan vs State of Punjab highlighted the necessity for detailed analysis when awarding capital punishment. The Supreme Court instructed the courts to examine aggravating and mitigating factors and ensure that death penalty is awarded only when alternative sentencing is unquestionably inadequate.

Thus, the Bachan Singh versus the State of Punjab case played an important role in balancing constitutional rights with the criminal justice system.

Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab Judgment and Impact 

The Supreme Court on 16th August, 1982 issued a two-pronged verdict that has had a lasting impact on the stance of India on capital punishment. The Bench of 5-Judges comprising Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice N.L. Untwalia, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice R.S. Sarkaria and Justice A.C. Gupta in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab 1980 upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but introduced a significant criteria i.e., the death penalty could only be imposed in the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases. The doctrine was introduced to ensure that capital punishment remained an exceptional measure and reserved only for the most heinous crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed that the death penalty should not be the standard but an exception.

Bachan Singh Case 1980 The ‘Rarest of the Rare’ Doctrine

In the matter of Bachan Singh vs the State of Punjab the highest judicature stipulated relevant principles in order to determine what constitutes a ‘rarest of the rare’ case. The guidelines, though not exhaustive, aimed to reduce arbitrariness in the decisions of death penalty. The Court highlighted a balanced approach and acknowledged several factors that would influence future capital punishment cases.

Bachan Singh Case 1980 & Gravity of the Offence

The gravity of the offence was considered as the most important factor in Bachan Singh versus the State of Punjab. The offences that are shocking and brutal and characterized by exceptional barbarity would fall under the category of ‘rarest of the rare’.

Culpability of the Offender in Bachan Singh Case 1980

The Supreme Court in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab 1980 also highlighted the significance of assessment of the background and mental state of the offender. Premeditated, cold-blooded murders would be weighed more heavily than impulsive acts committed under extraordinary circumstances. The Court notified against a ‘mechanical’ application of the death penalty. It highlighted the need for a thorough and careful evaluation of the culpability of the offender.

Substituted Sentences

The theory of ‘rarest of rare’ stipulated substitution of sentence of replacing life imprisonment with solitary confinement. The Court in Bachan Singh v the State of Punjab highlighted the need to explore all other possibilities before granting the death penalty.

Thus, the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh versus State of Punjab 1980 declared the death penalty provided under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 354 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code as unconstitutional and void as being violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of Indian Constitution.

Conclusion

The Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab 1980 was an important decision in Indian legal history. The case set out guidelines for the imposition of the death penalty. It introduced the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’. The Court in this case highlighted individualized sentencing and the consideration of the circumstances of the offender. The Bachan Singh v the State of Punjab case also sparked debates on the constitutionality, fairness and effectiveness of the death penalty in India with one dissenting judge arguing it violated the right to life under Article 21 of Constitution.