Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab

 

Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1980

 

Citation: AIR 1980 SC 898, 1980

Petitioner: Bachan Singh

Respondent: State of Punjab

Date of Judgement: 16 Aug. 1982

Bench: Justice Y. V. Chandrachud; Justice A. Gupta; Justice N. Untwalia; Justice P. N. Bhagwati; Justice R Sarkaria and Justice A.C. Gupta

 

Introduction

Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab is one of the most famous landmark judgements that was delivered by the Supreme Court. The SPL filed by the petitioner led the supreme court to evolve the rarest of the rare cases doctrine as well as laid down some basic foundation for awarding the death penalty to the criminal.

 

Provisions of Law involved

1)      Section 354 (3) of the CrPC, 1973.

2)     Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3)     Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

 

Facts

Bachan Singh was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of 3 people, Desa Singh, Durga Bai and Veeran Bai by the Sessions Judge. He was sentenced to death under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code which talks about whoever commits a murder is to be punished with either death or life imprisonment and is also libel to a fine. He made an appeal in the High Court, however, the judgment of the Session Judge was upheld and his death sentence was confirmed. After this Bachan Singh filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.

The petitioner said that the facts that were found by the session judges and high court were not “special reasons” for the death penalty under Sec. 354 of CrPC, 1973. The murder he committed was neither extremely inhumane and heinous nor he has ever been convicted of murder before. He also questioned the lower court's authority and said they did not have enough power to hand out a death sentence. He also said that Section 302 of the IPC was against Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and said it was against the basic structure of the constitution.

Article 19 talks about the right to freedom of speech and expression whereas Article 21 talks about the right to life and personal liberty. Bachan Singh said that the death penalty was against both of these things and hence section 302 of the IPC was unconstitutional.

 

Issue

The issue in the following case is whether the death penalty is constitutionally valid or not and can the supreme court limit the death penalty to a narrow category of murders?

 

Judgment

Supreme court said that all the rights that are provided under Article 19 namely freedom of speech and expression; freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms; freedom to form associations or unions; freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India; freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business are not absolute rights. These rights can be violated if a reasonable and fair procedure is followed. The court went on to state that none of the rights that are provided under Article 19 give any person the right to murder anyone or to commit any offence. Therefore these penal laws do not attract the application of Article 19.

The court took reference from Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. In this particular case, the court held that a person can be deprived of the rights that are provided under Article 21 and said that these rights are also not absolute rights. These rights can be taken away from a person with just, fair and reasonable. And the procedure mentioned in Sec 354(3) of CrPC is just, fair and reasonable.

The court upheld that because of the following reasons the death penalty that was given for the offence of murder did not violate the basic structure of the constitution.

SC evolved the doctrine of “rarest of rare cases' for awarding the death penalty. The Supreme Court laid down broad guidelines for awarding the death penalty.

a) The extreme penalty can be inflicted only in gravest cases of extreme culpability.

b) In making the choice of the sentence, due regard must be paid to the circumstances of the offender also.

c) Supreme Court was of the view that minimal use of capital punishment to penalize the criminals.

 

Conclusion

The judgement was given and the doctrine that evolved after is one of the most important landmark judgements. The SC had the intention of lowering the amount of capital punishment that used to penalise the criminals. However, this has not really been upheld as there has been an increase in the number of criminals that have received capital punishment.