Scribd
Upload
39 views2 pages

Bachan Singh V State of Punjab

The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab established the 'rarest of the rare' doctrine, limiting the application of the death penalty. The case involved Bachan Singh, who was convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death, with the court examining whether the facts constituted 'special reasons' for such a sentence. The dissenting opinion argued that the provision for the death penalty in the Indian Penal Code violated constitutional rights by lacking legislative guidelines for its application.

Uploaded by

Raghavi Jammula
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
39 views2 pages

Bachan Singh V State of Punjab

The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab established the 'rarest of the rare' doctrine, limiting the application of the death penalty. The case involved Bachan Singh, who was convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death, with the court examining whether the facts constituted 'special reasons' for such a sentence. The dissenting opinion argued that the provision for the death penalty in the Indian Penal Code violated constitutional rights by lacking legislative guidelines for its application.

Uploaded by

Raghavi Jammula
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

BACHAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB

This Case is a landmark judgment given by 5 judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In
this case Supreme Court announced important limitations on the death penalty by setting the
“rarest of the rare” doctrine. The Supreme Court said,” A real and abiding concern for the
dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s instrumentality. That
ought not to be done except in rarest or the rare cases where the alternative opinion is
unquestionably foreclosed”.

FACTS:

The Appellant Bachan Singh was convicted for his wife’s murder and was sentenced for life
imprisonment. After undergoing the term of imprisonment ( i.e after his release) he was
living with his cousin Hukam Singh and his family by this hukam singh’s wife and his son
objected the appellant’s living in their house. A few days prior to this occurrence in the
midnight Vidya Bai was awakened by alarm and saw the appellant inflicting axe blow on her
sister’s ( Beeran Bai) face. On the attempt to stop the appellant Vidya Bai got blown on her
face and ear with axe leading injuries her face and ear making her unconscious. Diwan singh
who was sleeping at a distance woke up by the shriek and raised an alarm to wake Gulab
singh sleeping at a distance from there. On seeing an appellant with axe on Desa bai’s face
they both hurried to stop him. Noticing them moving towards him the appellant left the axe
and ran away. Diwan Singh and Gulab Singh gave a chase to him but couldn’t apprehend
him. Later Bachan Singh was 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 his death sentence given 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 in section 354(3) of 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?

Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides for equality before the law or equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India. It states: "The State shall not
deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within
the territory of India."

JUDGEMENT :

Bhagwati, J dissented with the majority judgement and held that Section 302 of the Indian |
Penal Code in so far as it provides for the imposition of the death penalty as an alternative to
life sentence is ultra vires and void as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution since it does not provide any legislative guidelines as to when life should be
permitted to be extinguished by the imposition of the death sentence.

RAGHAVI JAMMULA
20BBL7002

You might also like