Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1980
Equivalent citations: AIR 1980 SC 898, 1980 CriLJ 636, 1982 (1) SCALE 713
Author: O B Kailasam
Bench: Y Chandrachud, A Gupta, N Untwalia, P Bhagwati, R Sarkaria
JUDGMENT
(for himself and on behalf of Chandrachud, C. I. and A.C. Gupta and N. L. Untwalia, JJ.) (Majority view)
1. This reference to the Constitution Bench raises a question in regard to the constitutional validity of death
penalty for murder provided in Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentencing procedure embodied in
Sub-section (3) of Section 354 of the CrPC, 1973.
2. The reference has arisen in these circumstances : Bachan Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of
1979, was tried and convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murders of
Desa Singh, Durga Bai and Veeran Bai by the Sessions Judge. The High Court confirmed his death sentence
and dismissed his appeal.
3. Bachan Singh's appeal by special leave, came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court (consisting of
Sarkaria and Kailasam, JJ.). The only question for consideration in the appeal was, whether the facts found by
the courts below would be "special reasons" for awarding, the death sentence as required under Section 354(3)
of the CrPC, 1973.
4. Shri H. K. Puri, appearing as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant, Bachan Singh, in Criminal Appeal
No. 273 of 1979, contended that in view of the ratio of Rajendra Prasad v. State of U. P. (1979) 3 SCR 646,
the courts below were not competent to impose the extreme penalty of death on the appellant It was submitted
that neither the circumstance that the appellant was previously convicted for murder and committed these
murders after he had served out the life sentence in the earlier case, nor the fact that these three murders were
extremely heinous and inhuman, constitutes a "special reason" for imposing the death sentence within the
meaning of Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1974. Reliance for this argument was placed on Rajendra Prasad
(ibid) which, according to the counsel, was on facts very similar, if not identical, to that case.
5. Kailasam, J. was of opinion that the majority view in Rajendra Prasad taken by V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., who
spoke for himself and D.A. Desai, J., was contrary to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Jagmohan
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , inter alia, on these aspects:
(i) In Rajendra Prasad, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. observed:
The main focus of our judgment is on this poignant gap in 'human rights jurisprudence' within the limits of the
Penal Code, impregnated by the Constitution. To put it pithily, a world order voicing the worth of the human
person, a cultural legacy charged with compassion, an interpretative liberation from colonial callousness to
life and liberty, a concern for social justice as setting the rights of individual justice, interest With the
inherited text of the Penal Code to yield the goals desiderated by the Preamble and Articles 14, 19 and 21.
FOR MORE OF THIS CLICK Bachan_Singh_vs_State_Of_Punjab
