Case Law On Death Penalty And Life Imprisonment Enforcement
⚖️ 1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts:
Bachan Singh was sentenced to death for murdering three people. He challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), arguing that it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution (Right to Equality, Freedom, and Life).
Issue:
Was the death penalty constitutional under Article 21 (“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”)?
Decision:
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court (by 4:1 majority) upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but laid down the famous “rarest of rare” doctrine.
Principle Established:
Death penalty is constitutionally valid, but should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
Courts must balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Life imprisonment is the rule, and death is the exception.
Significance:
This judgment is the cornerstone of death penalty jurisprudence in India. It established that while the death penalty remains legal, its use must be highly restricted and justified only when life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate.
⚖️ 2. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470
Facts:
Machhi Singh and others committed multiple murders across several villages due to family enmity. They were sentenced to death, which they appealed.
Issue:
How should the “rarest of rare” principle be applied in practice?
Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence and elaborated the criteria for applying the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
Principle Established:
Justice Thakkar categorized five circumstances to guide sentencing:
Manner of Commission: Cruel, gruesome, or inhuman acts.
Motive: When the crime is socially abhorrent (e.g., killing children, women, or the helpless).
Anti-social or Socially Abhorrent Nature: Terrorist acts, communal killings, etc.
Magnitude of the Crime: Large-scale killings.
Victim of the Crime: Where the victim is innocent or vulnerable.
Significance:
Machhi Singh operationalized the Bachan Singh test, making it easier for lower courts to apply consistent standards in capital punishment cases.
⚖️ 3. Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) 1 SCC 20
Facts:
Jagmohan Singh was sentenced to death for murder and challenged it as violating Articles 14, 19, and 21, arguing that there was no procedural guideline for awarding the death sentence.
Issue:
Does the death penalty violate the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21?
Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty. It held that the procedure established by law under Article 21 includes judicial discretion and reasoning during sentencing.
Principle Established:
Death penalty is not per se unconstitutional.
The judge’s discretion, guided by evidence and circumstances, ensures that the punishment is not arbitrary.
Sentencing is part of the judicial process, thus fulfilling “procedure established by law.”
Significance:
This was the first case to test the constitutional validity of the death penalty in India. It paved the way for later refinements in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh.
⚖️ 4. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277
Facts:
Section 303 of the IPC mandated compulsory death sentence for any life convict who commits murder. Mithu, a life convict, murdered a fellow prisoner and was sentenced to mandatory death under this section.
Issue:
Is a mandatory death sentence constitutional?
Decision:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 303 IPC as unconstitutional, holding it violated Article 21.
Principle Established:
A mandatory death sentence deprives the court of judicial discretion.
Every accused has the right to an individualized sentencing hearing.
Death penalty must only follow after weighing all mitigating and aggravating factors.
Significance:
Mithu reaffirmed that death sentences cannot be automatic. Judicial discretion and proportionality are essential for fairness under Article 21.
⚖️ 5. Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767
Facts:
Swamy Shraddananda murdered his wife for property. The trial court sentenced him to death, and the Supreme Court had to decide whether death was appropriate.
Issue:
Could the court impose a punishment between life imprisonment (14 years) and death penalty?
Decision:
The Supreme Court substituted the death sentence with imprisonment for life without remission, meaning the convict would remain in prison for the rest of his natural life.
Principle Established:
Courts can impose “life imprisonment till natural life” where death penalty seems too harsh but life imprisonment (with possible remission) seems inadequate.
Introduced the concept of special category sentences.
Significance:
This judgment provided a middle path between death and regular life imprisonment, balancing the need for justice with mercy and human rights concerns.
⚖️ 6. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1
Facts:
Several death row prisoners sought commutation of their sentences on the ground of inordinate delay in deciding mercy petitions by the President.
Issue:
Does excessive delay in mercy petitions justify commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment?
Decision:
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentences of 15 prisoners to life imprisonment due to long delays, holding that such delays violate Article 21.
Principle Established:
Unreasonable delay in mercy petitions = violation of right to life and dignity.
Death sentence can be commuted if the delay is inordinate.
Mental illness, solitary confinement, or procedural lapses can also be grounds for commutation.
Significance:
This case reinforced humanitarian safeguards around the death penalty and ensured that even condemned prisoners retain constitutional protection.
⚖️ 7. Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P. (2016) 9 SCC 541 (Nitish Katara Case)
Facts:
Vikas and Vishal Yadav killed Nitish Katara in an “honour killing.” The trial court imposed life imprisonment without remission for 25 years, and the convicts argued it was excessive.
Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the life imprisonment for 25 years without remission, reaffirming Swamy Shraddananda.
Significance:
This case confirmed that courts can fix a specific term of imprisonment without remission to ensure justice in heinous crimes without resorting to death penalty.
✅ Key Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Leading Case | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Death Penalty | Bachan Singh (1980), Jagmohan Singh (1973) | Death penalty valid but limited to “rarest of rare” cases. |
| Rarest of Rare Doctrine | Bachan Singh (1980), Machhi Singh (1983) | Death penalty only when life imprisonment is insufficient. |
| Judicial Discretion in Sentencing | Mithu (1983) | Mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional. |
| Life Imprisonment till Natural Life | Swamy Shraddananda (2008) | Middle ground between life and death; no remission allowed. |
| Humanitarian Grounds for Commutation | Shatrughan Chauhan (2014) | Delays, mental illness, or inhuman treatment justify commutation. |
| Fixed-Term Life Sentences | Vikas Yadav (2016) | Courts can impose life sentences of a fixed term without remission. |
🧾 Summary
Death Penalty is not unconstitutional, but limited to the rarest of rare cases.
Life Imprisonment is the default punishment for murder, unless aggravating circumstances justify death.
Courts must always consider individualized sentencing, balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.
Even death row prisoners have rights under Article 21 — dignity, fair process, and protection against undue delay.
The evolution of these cases shows a progressive humanization of criminal justice in India.
RELATED Blog
comments