CASE COMMENTRY
BACHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB (IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA)
Appellant : Bachan singh
Respondent : State of Punjab
Citation : Criminal appeal no. 273 of 1979
Date of judgment : 16th august 1982
Judge Bench : Five judge bench : J. Chandrachud, Justice P.N.Bhagwati, Justice R. Sarkaria , Justice N.L. untwalia, Justice A.C. Gupta
INTRODUCTION
The utilization of Capital Punishment, every now and again known as the death penalty, is the exceedingly questionable issue to be talked about. The death penalty has been utilized as a kind of punishment since time immemorial for the abolition of offenders and as a punishment for horrific crimes. Indian criminal jurisprudence is founded on a mix of deterrent and reformative punishment principles. Although the penalties are to be administered with the intention to deter offenders it is also believed that the opportunity for reformation must also be given to criminals.Capital punishment has been a topic of discourse since its inception. Would hanging the culprit justify their actions? Would there be deterrence in society and would the number of crimes be reduced? The answers to these questions are ambiguous.After considering various arguments for and against capital punishment, the Law Commission of India concluded that India is a diverse country in regards to its population and very vast in area, as well as the level of their educational and moral values, varies from one another. At such a place it is very difficult to maintain law and order, which is the very need of the hour. Because of this, at this crucial time, India cannot take the risk to do the experiment of abolishing Capital Punishment.[1]Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab[2] is a well-known landmark judgment credited for developing the jurisprudence pertaining to the death penalty. It examined whether the death penalty was in consonance with the provisions of the Indian Constitution.In the present mentioned case, SC declared imperative restrictions on capital punishment setting the ‘rarest of rarest’ doctrine. This case is a landmark judgment given by 5 judges bench in this context where the SC said that “a real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through laws instrumentality. That ought not to be done except in rarest of rare cases where the alternative opinion is unquestionably foreclosed.”
FACT OF THE CASE
In the present case, the appellant Bachan Singh had earlier been convicted of his wife’s murder and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was released after serving his sentence and spent around six months with his cousin Hukam Singh and his family. The appellant’s living at Hukam Singh’s apartment was questioned by Hukam Singh’s family members, including his wife and son. After dinner on the night of the crime, i.e., July 4, 1977, the family went to bed. The sleeping arrangement was such that in which Hukam Singh’s three daughters, Durga Bai, Veeran Bai, and Vidya Bai, went to sleep in the inner courtyard, while the appellant along with Hukam Singh, and Desa Singh went to sleep in the outer courtyard. At around midnight, Vidya Bai saw that the appellant was inflicting axe blows on the face of her sister, Veeran Bai when she was awakened by the alarm. When she tried to stop him, the appellant attacked her with the axe on the face and ear, making her unconscious. Later, after hearing the shriek, Diwan Singh awoke from his slumber and saw the appellant strike Desa Singh with the axe. In order to arouse Gulab Singh, who was sleeping at a short distance from there, he raised an alarm. When both of them saw the appellant with an axe in Desa Singh’s face, they both rushed to stop him. When the witnesses raised an alarm and the appellant noticed them approaching him, he dropped the axe and fled. Diwan Singh and Gulab Singh pursued him but were unsuccessful in apprehending him. The appellant was later tried and found guilty by the Sessions Court of murdering three people, including Desa Singh (Hukam Singh’s son), Durga Bai and Veeran Bai (Hukam Singh’s daughters), and injuring Vidya Bai (Hukam Singh’s another daughter) in the courtyard of Hukam Singh’s house at about midnight, and was sentenced to death. The Death sentence imposed by the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court on appeal. Also, the injuries on Vidya Bai’s body were deemed inhumane by both the Trial Court and the High Court. Bachan Singh then filed the special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, in which the question was raised regarding the presence of “special reasons” in the facts of the case, which are necessary for awarding the death sentence according to Section 354(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
v Whether death penalty for murder under Section 302 IPC is constitutionally valid?
v Whether the sentencing procedure prescribed under Section 354(3) of Crpc is constitutionally valid?
v Whether Section 302 IPC offends Article 19, Article 21 or basic structure of the Constitution?
ARGUMENT FROM THE PETITIONER SIDE
The petitioner raised the contention that the death penalty awarded for the offence of murder under section 302 of IPC violates articles 19&21 of Constitution of India. Right to live in the basic enjoyment guaranteed to a citizen mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) & (g) of article 19 of Constitution of india and the death penalty puts an end to all these freedoms. No social purpose is served by the death penalty & it does not fall under the purview of unreasonable restriction. Lastly, the petitioner argue thatthe offenceis not of such inhumane and heinous nature to award the death penalty.
ARGUMENT FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE
The respondents contended that an individual must own property in a way that does not infringe the rights of another individual, that is, the principle of sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. They further contended that the rights guaranteed under Article 19 are not absolute in nature and are subject to certain reasonable restrictions.
JUDGEMENT
The constitutional challenges to Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code were dismissed by the Supreme Court with a majority decision of 4:1. According to this court, the six essential rights provided by Article 19(1) are not absolute rights and are subject to the reasonable restrictions which can be imposed by the state and the inherent restraint. This restraint arises from the reciprocal obligations of the members of civil society according to which one member of the society is obligated to use his rights in such a way as not to infringe or harm similar rights of another member of society. The court held that Section 302 neither violates Article 19 nor Article 21 of the Constitution.
It was also determined that Section 354 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was not unconstitutional and that the term “special reason” in the section refers to “exceptional reasons” arising from the extraordinarily serious circumstances of a particular case involving both the crime and the criminal. In awarding the death penalty, the Supreme Court established the principle of “rarest of the rare cases.” It was reaffirmed that life imprisonment is the rule for individuals convicted of murder, but the death penalty is an exception.
v RATIO DECIDENDI
It was determined that the granting of the death sentence as an alternative punishment for murder under Section 302 is not irrational or contrary to the public interest. It does not contravene either the letter or the spirit of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It satisfies the requirements of the Constitution. Furthermore, Article 21 and other provisions of the constitution clearly imply that the founding fathers recognized the state’s right to deprive a person of life or personal liberty in line with fair, just, and reasonable procedures established by legitimate legislation.
The constitutionality of Section 354(3) of CrPC was questioned on the grounds that “a sentence of death is the most severe penalty of law, and it is only reasonable that when a Court grants it in a case where a life sentence is also available, it should present exceptional reasons in support of the sentence.” As a result, Section 354(3) of the current Code states: When a conviction is for an offense punishable by death or, in the alternative, by life imprisonment or a term of years in prison, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, the special reasons for such sentence if it is a case of a death sentence.
The judges of Supreme Court also relied on the judgments of Jagmohan Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh[[3]], in which the question of the constitutionality of the death penalty was addressed by the Supreme Court for the first time, and Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[[4]]. In the case of Jagmohan, it was decided that the death penalty does not abridge all of the freedoms protected by Article 19(1), and that it does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution because judges have unrestricted and uncontrolled authority to impose either capital punishment or life imprisonment. As a result, the death penalty became more of an exception than a rule. In case of Rajendra Prasad, it was determined that when a person is sentenced to death, he loses his right to life, thereby infringing on his fundamental right.
v DISSENTING OPINION
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 of arbitrariness. In dissenting from the majority opinion, Bhagwati, J. stated that the imposition of the death sentence as an alternative to life imprisonment in Section 302 of the IPC is ultra vires and unlawful since it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He held this stance because he believes the contested provision lacks any legislative guidance as to when an accused’s life can be taken by the imposition of a death sentence.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in accordance with the majority opinion. It was held that the provision of the death penalty as an alternative punishment for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC, in so far as it prescribes the death sentence; as well as the constitutionality of Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973, is neither unreasonable nor is it against the public interest. It is constitutionally valid and does not violate the letter nor the ethos of Article 19 of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
The decision given by the Supreme Court in this case is welcomed as one of the landmark judgements on the issue of death penalty. Whenever a death sentence is imposed someone, that sentence grabs the attention of the whole nation. In this case also, the whole nation was eagerly waiting for the judgement of the Supreme Court, when the court in its majority decision observed that Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 354(3) of Criminal Procedure code are valid on the touchstone of constitutionality.
In this case, the Indian judiciary has made it clear what they think about the death
Sentence, stating that it should only be used in “rarest of rare” circumstances. This
Supreme Court viewpoint was strongly in favour of minimizing the use of capital
Punishment to punish criminals. In essence, the death sentence is an exception to the
Rule of life imprisonment.
The interpretation of the last half of the dictum ‘that ought not to be done except in the rarest of rare instances when the alternative option is absolutely foreclosed’ is one aspect of the doctrine of “Rarest of Rare” that requires considerable examination. In this case it was suggested that thedeath punishment should be awarded only when the judges feel that it is the last resort, as the alternative punishment is not sufficient enough.
The doctrine of “rarest of rare case” for awarding death penalty has its great relevance and is followed even today. The judgement in this case, however, did not go into detail. On the criteria for defining “rarest of rare cases. It also doesn’t say what constitutes a “rarest of rare case.”
0 Comments