LLM Notes: Supreme Court Judgment on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) in IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion)

  The Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) judgment reshaped India’s capital punishment jurisprudence by introducing the "rarest of rare" doctrine. Here’s an analysis in IRAC format:

1. Whether the death penalty under Section 302 IPC (punishment for murder) and Section 354(3) CrPC (requiring "special reasons" for imposing death) violates Articles 14 (equality), 19 (fundamental freedoms), and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

2. Whether judicial discretion in sentencing leads to arbitrariness.

• : Articles 14, 19, and 21.

• :

  • Section 302 IPC: Allows death penalty or life imprisonment for murder.

  • Section 354(3) CrPC: Mandates "special reasons" for awarding death.

• : Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973), which initially upheld the death penalty but left sentencing discretion unguided.

The 5-judge bench upheld the death penalty’s constitutionality but introduced strict safeguards:

1. :

   • Death penalty is an exception, reserved for cases where alternative punishments are "unquestionably inadequate".

   • Courts must weigh aggravating circumstances (e.g., brutality, social impact) against mitigating factors (e.g., criminal’s age, mental health, potential for reform).

2. :

   • : Death penalty is constitutional if imposed through a fair, just, and reasoned procedure.

   • : Judicial discretion under Section 354(3) CrPC is not arbitrary, as courts follow the "rarest of rare" guideline.

   • : The death penalty does not inherently violate freedoms, as public interest justifies its limited use.

3. :

   • (under Section 235(2) CrPC) to assess circumstances of the crime and criminal.

   • by the High Court to reduce errors.

The Supreme Court:

1. the constitutionality of the death penalty under Sections 302 IPC and 354(3) CrPC.

2. capital punishment to the "rarest of rare" cases, requiring courts to record special reasons justifying it.

3. retribution with reformative justice, emphasizing that life imprisonment is the default punishment for murder.

This judgment remains foundational in death penalty cases, though debates persist about its application and consistency.

Print Page