BACHAN SINGH V.

STATE OF PUNJAB
AUTHOR – AAYUSH KUMAR JAISWAL, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW,
GURU GHASIDAS VISHWAVIDALAYA
CASE TITLE BACHAN SINGH V. STATE OF
PUNJAB
CITATION AIR1980 SC898
DATE OF JUDGMENT 9.MAY.1980
CORAM Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, A.C.
GUPTA, N.L. UNTWALIA, P.N.
BHAGWATI, R.S. SARKARIA
AUTHOR OF THE JUDGMENT Y.V CHANDRACHUD
APPELLANT BACHAN SINGH
RESPONDENT STATE OF PUNJAB

INTRODUCTION
This is a big decision made by a group of 5 judges from the Supreme Court. In this case, the Supreme Court
set the “rarest of the rare” doctrine, which limits the death penalty. The Supreme Court said, A real and
abiding concern for human life requires resistance to taking a life through law. That shouldn’t be done
except in the rare cases where the alternative opinion is unquestionably excluded.

FACT
The appellant, Bachan Singh, was convicted of his wife's murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
After his release, he was living with his cousin Hukam Singh and his family. Hukam Singh's wife and son
objected to the appellant's living in their house. A few days prior to this occurrence, Vidya Bai was woken
by an alarm and observed the appellant inflicting an axe blow on her sister's ( Beeran Bai's) face. Vidya Bai
sustained injuries to her face and ear when she attempted to stop the appellant with an axe, rendering her
unconscious. Diwan Singh, who was sleeping at a distance, woke up by a shriek and raised an alarm to wake
Gulab Singh, who was sleeping at a distance from there. Seeing an appellant with an axe on Desabai face,
they both hurried to stop him. Upon observing their movement towards him, the appellant discarded the axe
and fled. Diwan Singh and Gulab Singh pursued him, however, they were unable to capture him. Bachan
Singh was later tried and convicted, and sentenced to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for the
murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai, and Veeran Bai by the sessions judge. The High Court confirmed the
death sentence given to him by the sessions judge and dismissed his appeal. Bachan Singh then appealed to
the Supreme Court by Special Leave. The question raised in the appeal was whether the facts of his case
were special reasons for awarding him the death sentence, as required by section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973.

ISSUES

 Whether death penalty provided for the offence of murder in Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 is
unconstitutional?
 Whether the Facts found by the lower Courts would be considered “special reason” for awarding the
death penalty as is required under Section 354(3) CRPC?

JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court lucidly dismissed the challenges pertaining to the constitutionality of Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, the Court stated that
the six fundamental rights guaranteed under 19(1) are not absolute rights. These rights are subject to
inherent restraints stemming from the reciprocal obligation of one member of a civil society to use his rights
in a manner that does not infringe or injure similar rights of another. Furthermore, the court emphasized that
article 19 clauses (2) to (6) explicitly entitle the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
rights of citizens. There are several additional indications in the constitution that indicate that the
constitution fully acknowledges the existence of the death penalty for murder and certain other offenses
under the IPC 1860.The expression ‘special reason' in section 354(3) of the CRPC means that there are
exceptional reasons for the death penalty or an alternative imprisonment for life. In granting the death
penalty, the Supreme Court established the principle of 'rarest of the rare cases. Those convicted of murder
are subject to life imprisonment, and death sentence is an exception.

HELD
A four-to-one majority on the Supreme Court upheld its earlier decision and held that the provision of the
death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder under section 302 is not unreasonable nor contrary to
the public interest. Article 19 of the constitution of India does not violate it. It is a constitutional right. The
exercise of discretion under section 354(3) of the CRPC, 1973, should only be allowed in exceptional and
grave circumstances, and the imposition of a death sentence should only be allowed in the rarest of
instances.
There has been a national discussion about the death penalty. The Supreme Court tackled the
constitutionality of the death penalty for the first time in Jagmohan Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh.
Judges are given unguarded and uncontrolled discretion to impose either capital punishment or
imprisonment for life. The death penalty became the exception rather than the rule because of this. The
Bachan Singh case does not explain what falls under the purview of a rare case.