The Principle of Rarest of Rare Cases

Sabareesh Pillay | School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus | 26th August 2020

Bachan Singh Vs State Of Punjab

FACTS:

In this case, Bachan singh a former convict was living with his Cousin Hukam Singh’s family. They were a total of 5 people living in the house, Hukam singh, Beeran bai, Vidya bai and Diwan singh. They were all apprehensive after the arrival of Bachan singh due to his criminal record and convictions thus, Hukam Singh’s family objected to Bachan singh living with them, after a few days their fear came true as Bachan singh attacked the family members of Hukam Singh. Beeran Bai and Vidya Bai were attacked by an axe and they had been killed by Bachan Singh. The Accused Bachan Singh was convicted for the murder of his wife and had been sentenced to life imprisonment, he had recently released after he completed his life sentence. After the attack and murder of the two women in his cousin’s house hukam singh and diwan singh attempted to chase him down but he escaped. Bachan singh was eventually caught and tried in the court. He was sentenced to death for the murder of beeran bai and vidya bai by the sessions court. Bachan singh then appealed to the Supreme Court raising questions about his death penalty.

ISSUE:

Whether the Facts found out by the lower Courts would be considered as “special reason” for awarding the death penalty as is required under Section 354(3) CRPC and whether death penalty given for offence of murder in Section 302, Indian Penal Code is unconstitutional?

JUDGEMENT:

Bachan Singh’s Plea was dismissed by the bench of Justice Y.C. Chandrachud, Justice N. Untwalia, Justice A. Gupta, Justice P.N Bhagwati and Justice R Sarkaria Supreme Court and said that under section 354(3) of CRPC the concept of special reasons or exceptional reasons is mentioned which states that in grave circumstances an alternate for life imprisonment or death penalty is awarded. This is what the court described as the “rarest of rare cases” while awarding the penalty of death. The bench also said that the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 19 of the Indian constitution should not be considered as absolute rights. The court said –“These rights are subjected to inherent restrained stemming from the reciprocal obligation of one member of a civil society to so use his rights as not to infringe or injure similar rights of another”. The bench also mentioned that under article 19 clause 2 to 6- restrictions are imposable on the rights of the citizens if required by the state. The Supreme Court gave a favourable 4:1 decision and upheld the death sentence.

CONCLUSION:

 The Bachan Singh’s case decision did not elaborate the criteria for identifying “rarest of rare” cases. The Bachan singh case also does not explain as to what falls under the purview of “rarest of rare case”. The 5 judges Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court announced important limitations on the death penalty by setting the “rarest of the rare” doctrine and in this case the death penalty became an exception rather than a rule.