Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Death Penalty Under Indian Penal Code Section 302

Death Sentence as an Exception, Not the Rule; Court Emphasizes Judicial Discretion and "Special Reasons" under CrPC Section 354(3)

In a landmark judgment delivered on May 9, 1980, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty as provided under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court also affirmed the constitutionality of the sentencing procedure under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which mandates that courts must record special reasons when imposing the death sentence.

The case arose from the conviction and death sentence awarded to Bachan Singh for the murder of three individuals. The appellant challenged the death penalty on grounds that it violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the death sentence was arbitrary and disproportionate.

A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Justice R. S. Sarkaria, undertook a detailed examination of the legislative history, constitutional provisions, and international commitments relating to capital punishment. The Court navigated complex issues including whether the death penalty infringes on the right to life and personal liberty, whether it violates the freedom guaranteed under Article 19, and whether the sentencing procedure allowed arbitrary imposition.

Key findings and principles established by the Supreme Court include:

1. Applicability of Article 19: The Court clarified that penal laws defining crimes and prescribing punishments, including death penalty provisions, do not fall within the ambit of Article 19, which protects freedoms such as speech, movement, and occupation. The right to life is protected under Article 21, not Article 19. Therefore, challenges to death penalty provisions cannot be sustained on grounds of Article 19 violations.

2. Death Penalty and Article 21: The Court affirmed that the right to life under Article 21 permits deprivation of life according to a procedure established by law, which must be just, fair, and reasonable. The death penalty, as prescribed by the IPC and applied following fair judicial procedure, does not violate Article 21.

3. Judicial Discretion and Sentencing Procedure : Section 354(3) CrPC requires courts to record "special reasons" when imposing the death penalty, signaling legislative intent that death sentence is an exceptional punishment, not the norm. The Court held that this discretion is judicial and not arbitrary, guided by principles established through case law and legislative policy.

4. “Special Reasons” and “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine: While the Court refrained from defining exhaustive standards, it emphasized that the death sentence should be reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases where the crime is exceptionally grave and the alternative punishment of life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate. Factors include premeditation, extreme brutality, depravity, and threats to society.

5. Safeguards Against Arbitrary Imposition: The judgment highlighted multiple procedural safeguards including bifurcated trial proceedings, pre-sentence hearings (Section 235(2) CrPC), appellate review by High Courts, and special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. These mechanisms reduce the risk of miscarriage of justice.

6. International Covenants and Public Policy: The Court acknowledged India’s accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but observed that the Covenant permits death penalty in countries that have not abolished it, provided it is not arbitrarily applied and only for the most serious crimes. The Court found Indian law consistent with these commitments.

7. Divergent Views and Judicial Restraint: While a minority judge favored striking down the death penalty provisions as unconstitutional, the majority emphasized judicial restraint, deferring to Parliament’s legislative policy and the democratic process. The Court underscored that judges are to apply, not make, law.

8. Role of Death Penalty in Deterrence and Retribution: The Court reviewed extensive literature and global perspectives. It recognized that while the deterrent effect of the death penalty is difficult to empirically prove, it remains supported by many jurists, legislators, and public opinion as a necessary sanction to protect society from heinous crimes.

The judgment concluded that the death penalty as an alternative punishment under Section 302 IPC is constitutionally valid, and the sentencing procedure under Section 354(3) CrPC is fair and just. It reaffirmed that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty an exception, to be imposed only for special reasons in the gravest cases.

The Court directed that the writ petitions challenging these provisions be heard on their individual merits in light of the principles laid down in this judgment.

This decision remains a cornerstone in Indian criminal jurisprudence, balancing the constitutional protections of life and liberty with the societal need for justice and deterrence in the face of serious crimes.

Statutory provisions

Indian Penal Code Section 302, Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 354(3), 235(2), 432, 433, 433A, Constitution of India Articles 14, 19, 21, 32, 72, 134, 136, 161

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 104463