Criminal Procedure Code

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

(1980) 2 SCC 684

Citation: (1980) 2 SCC 684
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 9 May 1980
Bench: Y.V. Chandrachud CJ, A. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.N. Bhagwati and R.S. Sarkaria JJ. (Constitution Bench)

Facts

Bachan Singh had previously been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
After release, he was prosecuted for the murders of three persons.
The Sessions Court sentenced him to death under Section 302 IPC.
The High Court confirmed the sentence.
Before the Supreme Court, Bachan Singh challenged:
the constitutional validity of the death penalty;
and the sentencing framework under Section 354(3) CrPC.
Section 354(3) required courts to record “special reasons” where death rather than life imprisonment was imposed.
A Constitution Bench considered whether the death penalty could constitutionally coexist with:
Articles 14, 19 and 21;
judicial discretion;
and the requirement of fair sentencing. ( )

The death penalty was upheld by the majority as constitutionally valid.
Under Section 354(3):
life imprisonment is the rule;
death is the exception.
Death may be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases where the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
The sentencing court must consider:
circumstances of the crime;
circumstances of the offender;
age;
mental and emotional condition;
absence of prior criminality;
duress or domination;
probability of reform;
and possibility of rehabilitation.
“Special reasons” must be exceptional and case-specific.
A separate sentencing hearing under Section 235(2) must be meaningful.
BNSS Sections 258(2) and 393(3) preserve the sentencing hearing and special-reasons structure.

The Court rejected both:
automatic death sentences for categories of murder;
and complete removal of capital punishment by judicial decision.
Parliament had consciously made life imprisonment the normal sentence.
Therefore, the prosecution and court could not rely only on:
brutality;
public anger;
number of injuries;
or the fact that murder was proved.
The court had to examine the person being sentenced.
Mitigation is not an act of sympathy unrelated to law.
It determines whether:
the offender may be reformed;
life imprisonment can protect society;
and death is genuinely unavoidable.
The Court warned against rigid categories because criminal behaviour and human circumstances vary infinitely.
A balance had to be drawn between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, giving full weight to mitigation.
Death was permissible only where the court conscientiously concluded that no lesser sentence could meet the legitimate purposes of punishment.
The majority upheld the statutory framework because judicial reasons, appellate confirmation and constitutional review supplied procedural safeguards.
Justice Bhagwati dissented and later held the death penalty unconstitutional in its administration.

The Constitution Bench majority upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty.
It established that life imprisonment is the normal sentence and death may be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
The Court required individualised consideration of both the crime and the offender and demanded special recorded reasons.
Bachan Singh remains the controlling constitutional standard for capital sentencing. ( )