BACHAN SINGH V.

STATE OF PUNJAB 1980

An In-depth Exploration Of The Pivotal Bachan Singh Case That Shaped The Legal Landscape
Surrounding Capital Punishment In India

TEAM CODE - 39
 OUTLINES
 INTRODUCTION
 FACTS OF CASE
 ISSUES INVOLVED
 ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDE
 JUDGEMENT BY SUPREME COURT
 HOW COURTS WILL DETERMINE RAREST OF RARE CASES?
 RATIO DECIDENDI & OBITER DICTA
 IMPACT & SIGNIFICANCE OF CASE
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS
 CONCLUSION
 INTRODUCTION
CASE NAME Bachan Singh V. State Of Punjab

CITATION AIR 1980 SC 898

COURT Supreme Court

BENCH 5-Judge Constitution Bench

KEY ISSUE Constitutionality Of The Death Penalty Under Section 302 Of

IPC
 FACTS OF THE CASE
• Date & Location:
Midnight, July 4-5, 1977, Hukam Singh’s house, Ferozepur, Punjab.

• Accused:
Bachan Singh (previously convicted for wife’s murder).

• Victims:
Desa Singh (son), Durga Bai, Veeran Bai, Vidya Bai (daughters of Hukam
Singh).

• Incident:
 Bachan Singh attacked Veeran Bai with a kulhari (axe).
 Vidya Bai intervened but was also attacked.
 Bachan Singh struck Desa Singh.
FACTS OF THE CASE
•Witnesses:
Diwan Singh and Gulab Singh heard the attacks and saw the appellant fleeing after
raising an alarm.

•Aftermath:
 The victims taken to Fazilka hospital.
 Desa Singh,Durga Bai, Veeran Bai died; Vidya Bai injured.

•Legal Outcome:
 Convicted under Section 302 IPC (3 murders) and Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt).
 Sentenced to death for murders, 3 years rigorous imprisonment for injury.
 Appeal rejected by High Court.
 Filed SLP in Supreme Court.
LEGAL ISSUES
 Is the death penalty under Section 302 of the IPC unconstitutional and in
violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution?
 Does Section 354(3) of the CrPC provide safeguards against arbitrary
death sentences?
 Whether the imposition of the death penalty be limited to the "rarest of rare
cases"​?
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
 Irrevocability of Death Penalty  Death Penalty is Constitutional
Wrongful execution cannot be undone. Section 302 IPC and Section 354(3) CrPC do
not violate Articles 14, 19, or 21.
 Violation of Fundamental Rights
Right to life (Article 21) can be restricted by
Article 14 – Arbitrary application of death
fair, just, and reasonable procedure (Maneka
penalty. Gandhi v. UOI, 1978).
Article 21 – Not a fair, just, and reasonable
 Judicial Safeguards Prevent
procedure (Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, 1978).
Arbitrariness
 Arbitrary Sentencing Courts must record "special reasons" before
No clear guidelines; leads to inconsistent imposing death penalty. Sentencing considers
rulings (Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P., aggravating and mitigating factors
1979). (Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., 1973).
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
 Death Penalty is a Deterrent & Serves
 No Proven Deterrence
Public Interest
No evidence that it prevents crime more Prevents heinous crimes and protects
than life imprisonment (Jagmohan Singh v. society.
State of U.P., 1973 Supported by Parliament and Law
Commission’s 35th Report.
 Cruel & Inhuman Punishment –
Violates human dignity (Furman v. Georgia,  Not Arbitrary or Unfair
1972). Sentencing discretion ensures case-by-case
fairness. (Santa Singh v. State of Punjab,
 Against Global Trends
1976).
ICCPR and UN advocate abolition
 Complies with International Law
ICCPR allows death penalty for serious
crimes with due process.
JUDGEMENT
Majority Opinion (4:1) – Upheld Death Penalty With Restrictions
1.Justice Sarkaria (Majority Opinion)
 Death penalty is constitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19,
and 21.
 Introduced the "rarest of rare cases" doctrine, requiring "special
reasons" for imposing death penalty.
 Judicial discretion in sentencing is essential and should be exercised
based on aggravating and mitigating factors​.

2.Justice Gupta

 Stressed that the judiciary should not interfere with legislative

policy unless the punishment is manifestly arbitrary.
 Death penalty serves as a deterrent and is necessary in extreme
cases​
JUDGEMENT
3.Justice Chandrachud
 Concurred with Justice Sarkaria.
 Legislature, not judiciary, should decide abolition of the death penalty.
 Courts should respect Parliament’s decision to retain capital punishment.

4.Justice Untwalia
 Agreed with the majority that the death penalty is not unconstitutional.

 Supported the "rarest of rare" doctrine as a guideline for its application​

 JUDGEMENT
Dissenting Opinion(1 Judge)

5.Justice Bhagwati (Dissenting Opinion)

 Held that the death penalty is arbitrary and

unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 21.
 Cited global abolition trends and the risk of judicial
errors.
 Advocated for abolition of capital punishment,
arguing life imprisonment is sufficient deterrence​
 HOW COURTS DETERMINE
‘RAREST OF RARE’
Is the
CASES Is there an Are there
Do mitigating
crime factors
alternative No aggravatin Yes
Yes outweigh
punishable g factors
to Death aggravating
by death present?
penalty? factors?
under IPC?
1. Manner of

Ye
N Y

s
commission

O
N
O e
2. Motive
s
3. Crime against
vulnerable persons Is Life
Life imprisonment
imprisonmen Life 4. Public outrage
“unquestionably
t or lesser imprisonmen
N foreclosed”?
t or lesser
o
Ye

No
s
Life
Sentenc
imprisonmen
e to
t or lesser
death
RATIO DECIDENDI & OBITER
DICTA
Ratio Decidendi (Binding Legal Principle)

 Death penalty is constitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19, and
21.
 "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine: Death penalty should be awarded only in
exceptional cases where life imprisonment is "unquestionably
foreclosed."
 Judicial discretion must be exercised fairly, considering aggravating
and mitigating factors before sentencing.
 Section 302 IPC & Section 354(3) CrPC are valid and do not result in
arbitrary sentencing.
 Right to life (Article 21) is not absolute; it can be restricted through
fair, just, and reasonable procedure.
 RATIO DECIDENDI & OBITER DICTA
Obiter Dicta (Persuasive but Not Binding Remarks)

 Abolition of Death Penalty: Court acknowledged the global trend

toward abolition but stated that it is for the legislature to decide.
 Effectiveness as a Deterrent: No conclusive ruling on whether capital
punishment prevents crime better than life imprisonment.
 Moral & Philosophical Debate: Recognized deep divisions on the
issue but upheld the law based on constitutional principles rather than
ethical considerations.
 Public Opinion Matters: Since Parliament repeatedly rejected the
abolition of the death penalty, courts should respect legislative intent.
IMPACT & SIGNIFICANCE OF
CASE
•Introduced "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine
•Ensured Judicial Safeguards – Judges must provide "special
reasons" for death sentences.
•Life Imprisonment as Default – Death is an exception, not the
rule.
•Balanced Sentencing Factors – Consider both crime severity &
convict’s background.
•Reduced Arbitrary Sentencing
•Influenced Future Legal Reforms – Basis for Machhi Singh
(1983) & Shatrughan Chauhan (2014).
•Impact on Clemency & Commutation – Many death sentences
reduced to life imprisonment.
 Ambiguity in
Sentencing

Failure to
Judicial
Address
Subjectivity
Socioeconomi
c

Moral & Missed

Ethical opportunity
Concerns for Abolition
Impact on
Legal
Precedents
 CONCLUSION
• Bachan Singh upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty while
restricting its application.
• Established the "rarest of rare" doctrine, ensuring capital punishment is
applied sparingly.
• Strengthened judicial discretion but left room for subjective
interpretation.
• Influenced future rulings and legal reforms on the death penalty in
India.
• The debate on abolition continues, with evolving perspectives on human
rights and justice.
QUESTIONS FOR AUDIENCE
Let’s Think

1. If the death penalty were to be replaced, what should be the

alternative punishment?"
Life imprisonment without parole
 25+ years of rigorous imprisonment
 Restorative justice (offender working for victim’s family/society)
 No alternative— death penalty should remain

2. "If a convict shows genuine remorse and reform, should the

death penalty still be carried out?"
Yes, punishment should remain unchanged.
No, reformation should be considered.
 Depends on the severity of the crime.
REFERENCES
 Section 302 IPC
 Section 354(3) CrPC
 Furman V. Georgia, 1972 U.S
 Jagmohan Singh V. State of U.P,1973
 Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1976
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978
 Rajendra Prasad V. State of U.P ,1979
 Machhi Singh V. State of Punjab,1983
 35th Law Commission Report 1967
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966
THANK YOU!