⚖️ 7 LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA
👉 Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973)
Facts: Jagmohan Singh was sentenced to death for murder. He challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty, saying it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Issue: Whether the death penalty was unconstitutional for giving wide discretion to judges without legislative guidance.
Principle: The “procedure established by law” under Article 21 is satisfied if a fair trial and sentencing process are followed. Judicial discretion is guided by precedents and principles, not arbitrary.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty as constitutional. Sentencing discretion of judges, exercised after trial and hearing, was valid.
👉 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts: Bachan Singh, sentenced to death for murder, challenged the penalty on constitutional grounds.
Issue: Whether the death penalty under Section 302 IPC violates Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Principle: Death penalty is valid but must be used only in the “rarest of rare cases” when life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate. Courts must weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Held: Death penalty is not unconstitutional. But it should only be imposed in rarest of rare cases, where alternative punishment is not sufficient.
👉 Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
Facts: Machhi Singh and others committed a series of brutal murders. The trial court awarded the death penalty, which was confirmed by the High Court.
Issue: How to apply the “rarest of rare” doctrine laid down in Bachan Singh.
Principle: The Court laid down five categories for rarest of rare:
- Manner of commission (brutality)
- Motive (anti-social/inhuman)
- Nature of crime (shock to society)
- Magnitude (large number of victims)
- Victim’s status (child, woman, helpless person)
Held: Death penalty confirmed. Court clarified guidelines for identifying rarest of rare cases.
👉 MITHU V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1983)
Facts: Section 303 IPC made death penalty mandatory for a life convict committing murder. Mithu, a life convict, was sentenced under this provision.
Issue: Whether mandatory death penalty under Section 303 IPC is constitutional.
Principle: Mandatory death sentences violate Article 21 because they remove judicial discretion and ignore mitigating as factors.
Held: Section 303 IPC struck down unconstitutional. Judicial discretion in sentencing is essential.
👉Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
Facts: Bariyar and others kidnapped a man for ransom and murdered him. The trial court and High Court imposed the death penalty.
Issue: Whether the sentence of death was justified under the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
Principle: Courts must apply the rarest of rare test strictly. They must also consider the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused before imposing death.
Held: Death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment. The Court stressed individualized sentencing, consistency, and that capital punishment cannot be applied mechanically.
👉 SHATRUGHAN CHAUHAN V. UNION OF INDIA (2014)
Facts: Several death row convicts sought commutation, arguing delays in deciding their mercy petitions (some over a decade) and other human rights concerns.
Issue: Whether inordinate delay in executing a death sentence violates Article 21 and can justify commutation to life imprisonment.
Principle: Unreasonable delay, mental illness, or procedural lapses in dealing with mercy petitions amount to cruel and inhuman treatment, violating Article 21.
Held: Long delay in execution is a valid ground to commute death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court also laid down safeguards: mental health evaluation, family notice, and right to legal aid before execution.
👉 MUKESH & ANR. V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) (2017) – NIRBHAYA CASE
Facts: The 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder involved extreme brutality, shocking national conscience. The trial court awarded the death penalty, confirmed by the High Court.
Issue: Whether the brutality of the crime justified death penalty under the rarest of rare doctrine.
Principle: Crimes that shock the collective conscience of society, committed with extreme brutality and against vulnerable victims, fall under the rarest of rare category.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for all four convicts. The judgment emphasized deterrence, societal outrage, and the balance of aggravating versus mitigating factors.