TITLE                                : UPHOLDING THE SENTENCING POLICY

CASE NAME                     : BACHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB,1982

DECISION DATE             : 16th AUGUST, 1982

CITATION                         : AIR 1980 SC 898, 1980

DECIDING COURT         : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

BENCH                              : Y.C. CHANDRACHUD, A. GUPTA, N. UNTWALIA, P.N.

                                             BHAGWATI, R. SARKARIA

RELEVANT CASE LAWS

1. Jagmohan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1973

2. Mukesh & Anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2017

3. Rajendra Prasad Etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1979

4. A.K. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras, 1950

FACTS OF THE CASE

1.    The appellant, Bachan Singh, was initially found guilty of murdering his wife and was sentenced to life imprisonment. After serving his sentence, he resided with his cousin, Hukam Singh, and his family.

2.    Subsequently, Bachan Singh was charged, convicted, and sentenced to death for the murders of Desa, Durga, and Veeran. The Punjab High Court upheld the death sentence and dismissed his appeal. Bachan Singh then approached the Supreme Court, which granted him Special Leave to appeal.

3.    The central question raised in the appeal was whether Bachan Singh's case met the criteria of "special reasons" necessitating the imposition of the death penalty, as required by law.

ISSUES RAISED

1.    The first question raised in the case pertained to the constitutionality of the death penalty prescribed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the offense of murder.

2.    If the answer to the above question is negative, the second question addressed the constitutionality of the sentencing procedure outlined in Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It questioned whether this provision granted excessive discretion to courts, potentially leading to arbitrary imposition of the death penalty for murder offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment.

3.    The third query examined whether the factual findings made by the lower courts could be regarded as "special reasons" warranting the imposition of the death penalty, as mandated by Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGEMENT

In a majority decision, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, thereby dismissing it. The Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which imposes the death penalty for certain offenses. Additionally, the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was also dismissed.

RATIO DECIDENDI

·       In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, all six judges on the bench agreed that punitive detention or imprisonment as a punishment for an offense under the Penal Code falls outside the scope of Article 19.

·       Criminal laws, which define offenses and impose punishments, are not subject to the application of Article 19.

·       The burden is on the petitioners to demonstrate that the death penalty for murder is outdated, unusual, or disproportionate.

·       Sections 354(3) and 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure require the court to consider both the crime and the criminal when determining punishment and the presence of "special reasons."

·       The circumstances of the crime and the character of the criminal should not be examined separately, as they are often interconnected.

·       All murders are grave, but the degree of responsibility varies, and "special motives" exist when the culpability reaches extreme depravity.

CONCLUSION

Sentencing policy is crucial in every criminal justice system, including for the death penalty. However, a study of previous cases shows inconsistency and dependency on individual judges rather than principled sentencing. This undermines public trust and the effectiveness of the law. It is vital for the Court to impose proportional punishments, prioritize victims' rights, and ensure consistency in sentencing without personal biases.