Bachan Singh v State of Punjab
Rule established
Death penalty is constitutional but restricted to the 'rarest of rare' cases: life imprisonment is the rule, death is the exception
Facts
- Bachan Singh was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The constitutional validity of the death penalty was challenged under Articles 14, 19, and 21. A 5-judge Constitution Bench considered whether death penalty was permissible and, if so, under what circumstances.
Issue
- Whether the death penalty for murder under S.302 IPC is constitutionally valid; and if valid, what standard governs its imposition.
Held
- The Supreme Court (4:1, Sarkaria J writing for majority) upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but restricted it to the "rarest of rare" cases. Life imprisonment is the RULE; death is the EXCEPTION. Courts must weigh aggravating circumstances (of the crime) against mitigating circumstances (of the criminal). Death penalty imposed only when the alternative of life imprisonment is "unquestionably foreclosed."
Ratio Decidendi
1. Death penalty is constitutional (not violative of Art.14, 19, or 21). 2. "Rarest of rare" doctrine: death only when collective conscience of community is so shocked that it expects judicial power holders to inflict death. 3. Both aggravating (crime) and mitigating (criminal) factors must be weighed: a composite approach applying all four theories of punishment simultaneously.
How to use it in an exam
Use to demonstrate how all four theories of punishment operate together in one sentencing decision. Key for questions on constitutionality of death penalty, the rarest-of-rare doctrine, and the balancing test between aggravating and mitigating factors.
Source
Source: AIR 1980 Supreme Court 898
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.