INTRODUCTION
The ongoing case Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab has become a contentious one concerning the death sentence. Following the adoption of the constitution, a number of legislative efforts addressing the practicality and legitimacy of the death sentence were introduced. The Criminal Procedure Code was modified in 1973 to need “special reasons” in order to apply the death penalty, based on the 35th Law Commission Report.
In its 35th report, the Law Commission of India said stating “India cannot risk the trial of the abolition of 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.” This case is historic since it deals with the validity of the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code’s Section 354, Sub-section (3) procedure as well as Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code’s provision for the death penalty in murder cases. In limiting the death punishment in this instance, the Indian Supreme Court created the “rarest of the rare doctrine.” A five-judge panel of the Hon. SC made a significant decision in this matter. In this case, the Honorable Supreme Court’s five-judge panel rendered a noteworthy ruling. In this ruling, the Supreme Court established important limitations on the death penalty by embracing the “rarest of the rare” idea. The Supreme Court ruled, “A genuine and enduring concern for human dignity is a prerequisite for opposing the taking of a life via legal means. This should only happen in the most exceptional of circumstances when an opposing viewpoint is flatly rejected.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case goes like this : Bachan Singh, the appellant, had a violent past and experienced a horrific incident that resulted in a death sentence. He was entangled in a complicated web of legal concerns. Bachan Singh, who was originally found guilty of killing his wife, was given a life sentence before he was allowed to return to society. However, after he was released from prison, living with his cousin Hukam Singh and his family was a disastrous turn of events in his life. Tensions quickly arose in this house since Bachan Singh’s presence was strongly opposed by Hukam Singh’s wife and children. Tragedy happened on a horrible night, full of suspense and gloom.When an alarm went off, Vidya Bai, a household member, was startled awake to see a terrifying scene. The appellant, Bachan Singh, was seen striking Beeran Bai, Vidya Bai’s own sister, with an axe. Vidya Bai intervened gallantly to attempt to halt this horrifying attack. She made an attempt to take Bachan Singh’s axe, but it struck her cruelly, cutting her face and ear and knocking her unconscious in the process.The commotion roused others from their slumber, and it was not disregarded. Diwan Singh and Gulab Singh, two nearby sleepers, were startled out of their sleep by the piercing shrieks and alerted others. They saw something horrible when they hurried to the scene. Bachan Singh’s victim, Desa Bai, was still standing with the bloody axe in his hands. To prevent any further injuries, Diwan Singh and Gulab Singh tried right away to arrest Bachan Singh. When Bachan Singh realized he was surrounded and in danger of being captured, he made the difficult decision to drop the axe and flee. Diwan Singh and Gulab Singh pursued Bachan Singh in an attempt to bring him to justice, despite the gravity of the situation. But since Bachan Singh was able to avoid them, they were all in vain.
After that, Bachan Singh had to contend with a challenging legal battle. He was charged with the murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai, and Veeran Bai. The Sessions Judge found Bachan Singh guilty after carefully examining all of the evidence, and in line with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, he was executed. The circumstances surrounding Bachan Singh worsened when the High Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the death penalty in spite of his arguments.
After that, Bachan Singh had to contend with a challenging legal battle. He was charged with the murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai, and Veeran Bai. The Sessions Judge found Bachan Singh guilty after carefully examining all of the evidence, and in line with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, he was executed. The circumstances surrounding Bachan Singh worsened when the High Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the death penalty in spite of his arguments.
ISSUE
- Is the death penalty for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code unconstitutional?
- Whether the sentencing procedure described in Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973 is unconstitutional because it grants judges unchecked authority and allows 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?
- Would the facts found by the lower courts be sufficient under section 354(3) Cr.P.C. to constitute a “special reason” for the death penalty?
CONTENTIONS
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: Bachan Singh
Bachan Singh, the petitioner, contends that the death penalty should only be used in the most dire circumstances and that doing so would violate his fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Bachan Singh also highlights the rigidity of a mandatory death penalty system and the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing, particularly in capital cases. He demands a stringent standard of interpretation.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT : State of Punjab
The respondents, who are speaking on behalf of the State of Punjab in this case, are in favor of Bachan Singh being executed. They argue that the death penalty serves as a powerful deterrent against heinous crimes like murder, protecting society by instilling fear in potential offenders. The respondents emphasize the importance of maintaining judicial discretion, ensuring that judges are free to determine appropriate penalties based on the unique facts of each case, and promoting justice. They contend that there are “special reasons” in this case that justify the death penalty because of the exceptionally brutal nature of Bachan Singh’s offenses. The death penalty’s constitutionality is defended by pointing to the authority of the Constitution and established legal precedents.
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court unequivocally rejected the arguments against Section 302 of the IPC and Section 354(3) of the CRPC as being unconstitutional in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. The court held that the six fundamental rights guaranteed by 19(1) are not unalienable. These rights are inherently limited because each member of a civil society has an obligation to use his rights in a way that respects and does not infringe upon the rights of others who have similar rights (uteri tuo ut alienum non laedas).The court also made it very clear that the state’s ability to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of citizen rights is a prerequisite for the application of Article 19 Clauses (2) to (6). The state’s ability to impose reasonable restrictions on citizens’ enjoyment of their rights is a stated condition of Article 19 Clauses (2) to (6), as the court made abundantly evident.
According to Section 354(3) of the CRPC, “Special reason” refers to “exceptional reasons” that vary based on the exceptionally serious circumstances that result in the imposition of the death penalty or a life sentence as an alternative. When determining whether to carry out an execution, the Supreme Court established the “rarest of the rare cases” standard. For those found guilty of murder, life in prison without the possibility of release is the rule.
The ultimate selections: Except in the most extreme cases of extreme guilt, there is no justification for the death penalty.
Before rendering a decision and applying the death penalty, the judge ought to consider the criminal’s circumstances as well as the crime’s facts.
The justices stated, “Life imprisonment is the rule, whereas death sentence is the exception.” We can conclude from the case’s facts that the death penalty ought to be applied only in cases where a life sentence would seem insufficient.
Before exercising the option, a balance sheet containing aggravating and mitigating factors must be created, giving the mitigating circumstances full weight and creating a fair balance between them.
RATIO DECIDENDI: If life in prison is the standard punishment for murder and the death penalty is designated as an alternative to that punishment, then it is constitutional. This suggests that when all other avenues have been explored, the “rarest of rare cases” may warrant the application of the death penalty.
It was determined that the death penalty, which is Section 302’s alternative punishment for murder, is neither irrational nor unjustifiable. It does not, in word or spirit, violate Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
DEFECTS OF THE LAW
Because the “rarest of the rare” circumstances is not clearly defined, the case in question leaves room for judges’ subjective interpretation. Because of this ambiguity, the death sentence has been applied arbitrarily and inconsistently in various situations and courts. In addition, by discounting the prospect of reformation or rehabilitation for offenders, the case departs from the reformative theory of punishment, which prioritizes the former over the latter.
Another critical omission is to ignore the brutality and inhumanity connected to the death penalty while ignoring the human rights and dignity of prisoners. International human rights standards that prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment are broken by this kind of punishment. Additionally, it offends the right to life outright.
INFERENCE
The Supreme Court’s Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab ruling, in my opinion, carefully balances protecting society with respecting individual rights. The court took a reasonable stance when it said that while fundamental rights are necessary, they are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions for the good of society as a whole. The fact that the court chose to apply the death penalty only in the “rarest of the rare cases” further demonstrates its exercise of caution and discretion. It highlights how important it is to evaluate the offense and the offender in detail before determining the proper sentence. This strategy ensures a just and equal legal system that considers the likelihood of reintegrating into society.
CONCLUSION
Important questions regarding the legality of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the application of the theory that creates an exemption to the death penalty for murderers have been addressed by the court in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. Since Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code does not violate any of the rights outlined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has provided justification for its validity.
In light of the foregoing, the Court established the doctrine of “the Rarest of Rare”; this doctrine suggested that life in prison is the punishment in murder cases, with the death penalty being an exception if it satisfies the “special reasons” in the case. As a result, it was decided that the death penalty that the lower court in the Bachan Singh case had applied was suitable.
In light of the foregoing, the Court established the doctrine of “the Rarest of Rare”; this doctrine suggested that life in prison is the punishment in murder cases, with the death penalty being an exception if it satisfies the “special reasons” in the case. Accordingly, it was declared that the death sentence imposed by the lower court in the Bachan Singh case was appropriate.
Gaana N
CMR University School of Legal Studies, Bangalore