- CJI Y.V. ChandrachudFavored (Majority)
- Justice A.C. GuptaFavored (Majority)
- Justice N.L. UntwaliaFavored (Majority)
- Justice R.S. SarkariaFavored (Majority - Authored)
- Justice P.N. BhagwatiOpposed (Dissent)
- Constitution of India (Articles 14, 19, 21)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 302 - Punishment for Murder)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 354(3) - Special Reasons for Death Sentence)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Previous version)
- Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973) (Upheld death penalty pre-CrPC 1973)
- Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. (1979) (Attempted to narrow death penalty scope)
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) (Expanded Article 21)
- Furman v. Georgia (1972) (US Supreme Court case on death penalty arbitrariness)
This landmark case addressed the constitutional validity of the death penalty for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Bachan Singh, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, challenged the sentence, arguing that capital punishment violated Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
The case specifically examined the effect of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly Section 354(3), which mandated that judges provide "special reasons" for imposing the death sentence, implying life imprisonment was now the norm. The Court had to determine if this provision provided sufficient guidelines to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory application of the death penalty.
ARGUMENTS
Appellant's Case (Bachan Singh)
- The death penalty is inherently cruel, inhuman, and degrading, violating the right to life and dignity under Article 21 (as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi).
- It constitutes an unreasonable restriction on freedoms under Article 19.
- Section 302 IPC, read with Section 354(3) CrPC, lacks clear legislative guidelines for choosing between life imprisonment and death, leading to arbitrary and unequal application, violating Article 14.
- The death penalty serves no proven deterrent purpose beyond life imprisonment.
- Global trends were moving towards abolition.
Respondent's Case (State of Punjab)
- The Constitution explicitly contemplates the death penalty (e.g., Articles 72, 134, 161), hence it cannot be inherently unconstitutional.
- Jagmohan Singh (1973) already upheld its validity.
- Section 354(3) CrPC provides a guiding principle: life imprisonment is the rule, death penalty the exception requiring "special reasons."
- Judicial discretion, guided by principles, is necessary for sentencing; rigid guidelines are impractical.
- The death penalty serves retributive and deterrent purposes in heinous crimes.
Case Progression Timeline
Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P.
SC upholds constitutional validity of death penalty under the old CrPC (where death was the norm for murder).
1973New CrPC Enacted
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 comes into force. Section 354(3) requires "special reasons" for death penalty, making life imprisonment the default.
April 1, 1974Bachan Singh Convicted
Bachan Singh is convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the Sessions Court under IPC Section 302 and the new CrPC Section 354(3).
~Date UnknownHigh Court Confirmation
The Punjab & Haryana High Court confirms the death sentence.
~Date UnknownAppeal/Petition in Supreme Court
Bachan Singh challenges the constitutional validity of the death penalty itself under the new CrPC.
~Late 1970sRajendra Prasad v. State of U.P.
A 3-judge bench attempts to severely restrict death penalty to cases involving social security threats, causing some confusion.
1979Supreme Court Judgment (Bachan Singh)
By a 4:1 majority, SC upholds the validity of the death penalty but lays down the "rarest of rare" doctrine based on Section 354(3) CrPC.
May 9, 1980The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty provided under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court held that capital punishment did not violate Articles 14, 19, or 21 of the Constitution.
Crucially, the majority interpreted Section 354(3) of the CrPC, which requires "special reasons" for imposing death, as a significant safeguard. This provision meant that life imprisonment became the default sentence for murder, and the death penalty was to be imposed only exceptionally. To guide this exception, the Court formulated the famous "rarest of rare cases" doctrine. This required courts to consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances (relating to the crime and the criminal) and to impose death only when the alternative of life imprisonment was "unquestionably foreclosed." Justice P.N. Bhagwati dissented strongly, arguing that the death penalty was inherently arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 21.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
Justice Sarkaria, writing for the majority, acknowledged the expanded scope of Article 21 post-Maneka Gandhi but concluded that the Constitution implicitly permitted the death penalty. The analysis focused heavily on Section 354(3) CrPC as the legislative attempt to structure sentencing discretion. The "rarest of rare" doctrine was derived from this statutory provision, aiming to ensure that the death penalty was not applied arbitrarily. The Court emphasized the need for a balance between aggravating factors (like the brutality of the crime) and mitigating factors (like the age, background, and potential for reformation of the accused). The majority found that this framework, requiring a reasoned sentencing decision focused on exception, sufficiently addressed the concerns of arbitrariness under Article 14. Justice Bhagwati's dissent, however, maintained that judicial discretion, even within the "rarest of rare" framework, remained inherently subjective and prone to error, making the death penalty constitutionally unacceptable due to its finality and potential for arbitrariness.
FINAL VERDICT
- The constitutional validity of the death penalty for murder under Section 302 IPC, read with Section 354(3) CrPC, was upheld.
- The death penalty does not violate Articles 14, 19, or 21 of the Constitution.
- Section 354(3) CrPC marks a shift where life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception, requiring "special reasons".
- The "rarest of rare cases" doctrine was established: death penalty should only be imposed when life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed, after considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
- The appeal/petition challenging the sentence was dismissed based on the application of these principles to the facts of the case.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The provision of death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not unconstitutional; it does not violate the guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21. However, guided by Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the death sentence ought not to be imposed save in the "rarest of rare cases" where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. Sentencing requires a balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to both the crime and the offender.