INTRODUCTION

A controversial case involving the death penalty is Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. Numerous legislative initiatives addressing the validity and applicability of the death penalty were introduced after the Constitution was adopted. Based on the 35th Law Commission Report, the Criminal Procedure Code was changed in 1973 to require “special reasons” before the death penalty could be applied. 

“India cannot risk the trial of the abolition of the capital punishment at the present juncture due to the conditions in India, the variety of social upbringing of its inhabitants, the difference in the level of morality and education in the country, the vastness of its area, the diversity of its citizens, and the paramount need for preserving law and order in the country at the present juncture,” the Law Commission of India stated in its 35th report. 

This case is significant because it addresses the legality of Section 354, Subsection (3) of the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides for the death punishment in murder cases. The Indian Supreme Court established the “rarest of the rare doctrine” in order to restrict the death penalty in this particular case. In this case, the Hon. SC’s five-judge panel rendered a crucial ruling. The five-judge panel of the Honorable Supreme Court issued a significant decision in this matter. By adopting the “rarest of the rare” concept, the Supreme Court placed significant restrictions on the death penalty in this decision. “

“A sincere and persistent concern for human dignity is a prerequisite for opposing the taking of a life via legal means,” the Supreme Court decided. This should occur only in the rarest of situations when a contrary opinion is categorically rejected.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Bachan Singh, was convicted of a heinous crime and given the death penalty due to his violent record. He was caught up in a complex web of legal issues. Originally convicted of killing his wife, Bachan Singh was sentenced to life in prison before being permitted to rejoin society. But living with his cousin Hukam Singh and his family after being freed from prison was a terrible turn of events in his life. Since Bachan Singh’s presence was highly opposed by Hukam Singh’s wife and children, tensions in this household swiftly increased. The tragedy occurred on a terrible night that was tense and depressing. A household member named Vidya Bai was shocked awake by a startling scene when the alarm went off. 

The appellant, Bachan Singh, was observed using an axe to strike Beeran Bai, Vidya Bai’s own sister. Vidya Bai bravely stepped in to try to stop this terrible assault. When she tried to grab Bachan Singh’s axe, it viciously struck her, severing her face and ear and rendering her comatose. Others were awakened from their sleep by the noise, and it was not ignored. The sharp shrieks roused two adjacent sleepers, Diwan Singh and Gulab Singh, from their slumber and warned others. They rushed to the scene and saw something terrible. Desa Bai, Bachan Singh’s victim, was still standing there holding the bloodied axe. Diwan Singh and Gulab Singh immediately attempted to make an arrest in order to stop any more injuries.

Following that, Bachan Singh had a difficult legal battle. He was accused of killing Veeran Bai, Durga Bai, and Desa Singh. After carefully reviewing all of the evidence, the Sessions Judge declared Bachan Singh guilty and executed him in accordance with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. When the High Court rejected Bachan Singh’s appeal and maintained the death penalty despite his reasons, the situation surrounding him deteriorated. 

Following that, Bachan Singh had a difficult legal battle. He was accused of killing Veeran Bai, Durga Bai, and Desa Singh. After carefully reviewing all of the evidence, the Sessions Judge declared Bachan Singh guilty and executed him in accordance with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. When the High Court rejected Bachan Singh’s appeal and maintained the death penalty despite his reasons, the situation surrounding him deteriorated.

ISSUES RAISED

• Is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code’s death punishment for murder unconstitutional? 
• Because it gives judges unbridled power and permits the arbitrary imposition of a death sentence on a person found guilty of murder a crime for which the IPC stipulates that the punishment is either death or life in prison is the sentencing process outlined in Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973 unconstitutional?
• Under section 354(3) Cr.P.C., would the circumstances determined by the lower courts be adequate to support a “special reason” for the death penalty?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant

• According to the petitioner, the death penalty specified in Section 302 of the IPC is unconstitutional since it contravenes Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. He insisted that the death sentence nullifies every right protected by Article 19(a)(g). 
• The death penalty is neither an unreasonable restriction nor a means of advancing any social objective. 
• The petitioner contended that the death penalty, in this case, is an excessive punishment and should only be used in the most dire situations if life in prison is judged to be insufficient, using the proportionality principle. Executing the death penalty against the accused violates the rights specified in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent

• According to the respondents, the death penalty serves as a powerful deterrence against heinous crimes like murder by instilling dread in potential criminals. 
• The replies emphasize how important it is to respect judges’ discretion, ensure they have the freedom to determine what penalties are suitable for the specifics of each case and bring about justice. 
• They argue that the death penalty is acceptable in this case for “special reasons” since Bachan Singh committed exceedingly heinous offenses. By citing the authority of the Constitution and recent court decisions, proponents of the death sentence contend that it is constitutional. 

JUDGMENT

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court categorically dismissed the allegations that Section 302 of the IPC and Section 354(3) of the CRPC were unconstitutional. The six essential rights protected by 19(1) are not inalienable, the court ruled. Because every member of a civil society has a duty to exercise his rights in a way that respects and does not violate the rights of those with comparable rights, these rights are by their very nature restricted (uteri tuo ut alienum non laedas). The court also made it abundantly evident that the applicability of Article 19 Clauses (2) to (6) is contingent upon the state’s capacity to put reasonable limitations on the exercise of citizens’ rights.

The death sentence is lawful if it is specified as an alternative to life in prison, which is the usual punishment for murder. This implies that the “rarest of rare cases” may justify the use of the death penalty after all other options have been exhausted. The alternative punishment for murder under Section 302, the death penalty, was found to be neither unreasonable nor unjustifiable. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is not violated in either word or spirit.

CONCLUSION

The Court affirmed the death penalty’s legitimacy, stressing that it ought to be applied only in the “rarest of rare” circumstances. It emphasized that in order to prevent the punishment from being capricious or excessive, the sentencing process must strike a balance between aggravating and mitigating elements. In order to integrate the concepts of justice, fairness, and proportionality, the Court required sentencing judges to take into account the circumstances, the offender’s personality, motivation, and the nature of the offense. It emphasized that the death sentence should only be applied where life in prison is judged insufficient for the seriousness of the crime or is not a sufficient deterrent to egregious crimes.

Additionally, the ruling made clear the procedural protections against arbitrary death penalty decisions. The Court limited the use of the death penalty by establishing the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which turned it into an exception rather than a norm.

The case in question allows for judges’ subjective interpretation because the “rarest of the rare” circumstances are not precisely specified. The death penalty has been imposed arbitrarily and inconsistently in a variety of contexts and courts as a result of this ambiguity. Furthermore, the example deviates from the reformative view of punishment, which emphasizes reformation over rehabilitation, by rejecting the possibility of reformation or rehabilitation for offenders. Ignoring the cruelty and inhumanity associated with the death sentence while disregarding the human rights and dignity of inmates is another crucial omission. This type of punishment violates international human rights norms that forbid torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. It also directly violates the right to life.