Case Analysis

Appellants: Machhi Singh and Ors.

Vs.
Respondent: State of Punjab
AIR1983SC957

Hon'ble Judges: 
A.V. Varadarajan, M.P. Thakkar and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.
Bhavil Pandey
 Brief Case History
 Appeals by Special leave Petitions from the Judgment and
Order dated 1st September, 1980 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in Murder References Nos. 14, 18, 16 and 19 of
1979 and 1 of 1980 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 933, 1176,
935, 977, 978, 972, 992, 97.

 Acts/Rules/Orders:  Indian Penal Code - Sections 149 and

302; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - Section 313

Bhavil Pandey
 Issues Involved
 Application of rarest of rare cases rule in question– when community
feels that for sake of self preservation killer had to be killed
community may withdraw protection by sanctioning death penalty.
 Justice M.P. Thakkar was of the following opinion:
“Protagonists of the "an eye for an eye" philosophy demand "death-for-
death". The 'Humanists' on the other hand press for the other
extreme viz., "death-in-no-case".
• A synthesis has emerged in 'Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
wherein the "rarest-of-rare-cases" formula for imposing death
sentence in a murder case has been evolved by this Court.
• The Court will address the issue of Identification of the guidelines
spelled out in 'Bachan Singh' in order to determine whether or not
death sentence should be imposed.

Bhavil Pandey
 Important Facts
A feud between two families has resulted in tragic
consequences. Seventeen lives were lost in the
course of a series of five incidents which occurred
in quick succession in five different villages.
 In this connection one Machhi Singh and his
eleven companions. close relatives and associates
were prosecuted in five sessions cases.
 Machhi Singh was the common accused at each
trial.

Bhavil Pandey
 Common Judgment
 Court said: We will treat each of the appeals
compartmentally, and separately, on its own merits,
on the basis of the evidence recorded at the trial in
each sessions case giving rise to the respective
appeal.

 Butfor the sake of convenience we will dispose of the

appeals by this common judgment. In order to avoid
confusion, the occurrence in each village will be
adverted to in the same manner in which the High
Court has done viz., Crime No. I, IIA, IIB, III, IV and
V.

Bhavil Pandey
 Issues Already Discussed
 Motive :
 It is exhaustively dealt by the High Court. Suffice it to say that reprisal was
the motive for the commission of the crime.
 Common Criticism:
 The most serious criticism pressed into service by learned Counsel for the
appellants in each of the appeals is common. Instead of repeatedly dealing with
it, Court proposed to deal with it at this juncture.
 It was a dark night. Electricity had not yet reached the concerned village at the
material time. In each crime the appreciation of evidence regarding identification
has to be made in the context of the fact-situation that a lighted lantern was
hanging in the court-yard where the victims were sleeping on the cots. The light
shed by the lantern cannot be considered to be sufficient enough (such is the
argument) to enable the eye witnesses to identify the culprits. This argument
has been rightly rebuffed by the Sessions Court and the High Court.
 The concurrent finding of fact recorded, by the Sessions Court and the
High Court in this behalf does not, therefore, call for interference at the
hands of this Court on this score.

Bhavil Pandey
Facts pertaining to the individual
Appeals
 Crime No. I (Crl. Appeal No. 78-79/81, Common)
 Machhi Singh killed Biban Bai and Jagtar Singh whereas
Mohinder Singh killed Balwant Singh and Gurcharan Singh
which has attracted on them death penalty.
 The circumstances of the case do reveal that it was a cold-
blooded murder and the victims were helpless and
undefended. The offence committed was of an exceptionally
depraved and heinous character
 The manner of its execution and its design would put it at the
level of extreme atrocity and cruelty.

Bhavil Pandey
Facts pertaining to the individual
Appeals
 CRIME NO. II (Crl Appeal No. 80-84/81 Common)
 The two innocent helpless women named Ghamo Bai and
Rajo Bai were brutally killed in a helpless and defenceless
state in their own house and similarly a veteran couple
namely Bishan Singh and his wife Paro Bai were killed by
Machhi Singh and Jagir Singh appellants in similar
circumstances.
 The manner of its execution and its design would put it at
the level of extreme atrocity and cruelty.

Bhavil Pandey
Facts pertaining to the individual
Appeals
 CRIME NO. III (Crl. Appeal No. 85-96/81, Common)
 An old man Wanjar Singh and young man Satnam
Singh were put to death, for which Machhi Singh was
sentenced to death for committing the murder of the
latter and Mohinder Singh was sentenced to death for
committing the murder of the former. These two
defenceless and helpless men were put to death while
asleep.

Bhavil Pandey
Facts pertaining to the individual
Appeals
 CRIME NO. IV (Crl. Appeal No. 87/81, Common)
A young man named Mohinder Singh, a bread-earner
of the family, was put to death by Machhi Singh while
asleep in his blissful abode.
 The crime was pre-mediated and hair-raising to the
society at large in the sequence of which it came to
be committed creating a great risk of serious bodily
harm and death to many persons.

Bhavil Pandey
Facts pertaining to the individual
Appeals
 CRIME NO. V (Crl. Appeal Na. 88-89/81. Common)
 Sahib Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Manto Bai, Palo Bai and Jita Singh
were killed by five men including Machhi Singh and Jagir Singh
appellants.
 Not only were the crimes cold-blooded, calculated and gruesome
in features, these had been committed while spreading horror of a
killing spree.
 Similarly, Kashmir Singh appellant caused the death of a child
aged six years while asleep, a poor defenceless life put off by a
depraved mind reflecting grave propensity to commit murder.

Bhavil Pandey
 Views of Supreme Court
 The reasons why the community as a whole does not
endorse the humanistic approach reflected in "death
sentence-in-no-case" doctrine are not far to seek
 (i) When a member of the community violates this
very principle by killing another member, the society
may not feel itself bound by the shackles of this
doctrine.
 (ii) It has to be realized that every member of the
community is able to live with safety without his or
her own life being endangered because of the
protective arm of the community and on account of
the rule of law enforced by it.

Bhavil Pandey
 Observations of Supreme Court
 The community may entertain such a sentiment when
the crime is viewed from the platform of:
I Manner of Commission of Murder
 II Motive for Commission of murder
 III Anti Social or Socially abhorrent nature of the
crime
 IV Magnitude of Crime
V Personality of Victim of murder

Bhavil Pandey
 Reference to Bachan Singh’s Case:
“rarest-of-rare-cases" formula

A synthesis has emerged in 'Bachan Singh v. State of

Punjab wherein the "rarest-of-rare-cases" formula for
imposing death sentence in a murder case has been
evolved by this Court.
 Identification of the guidelines spelled out in 'Bachan Singh'
in order to determine whether or not death sentence should
be imposed is one of the problems engaging our attention,
to which we will address ourselves in due course.

Bhavil Pandey
 Guidelines spelled out in Bachan Singh
Case
 The following propositions emerge from Bachan Singh's case :

 (i) the extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in

gravest cases of extreme culpability;
 (ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of
the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration along
with the circumstances of the 'crime'.
 (iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an
exception
 (iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the
mitigating circumstances has to be accorded full weightage and
a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and
the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.

Bhavil Pandey
Application of Guidelines emerged
in Bachhan Singh Case
 In order to apply these guidelines inter-alia the following questions may be

asked and answered :

 (a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of
imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence ?
 (b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to
impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the
mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender ?
 Court should award death sentence if upon taking overall global view of all
circumstances in light of above two questions circumstances of case are
such that death sentence is warranted.

Bhavil Pandey
 Court Held that:
 We are of the opinion that insofar as these three
appellants are concerned the rarest of rare cases rule
prescribed in Bachan Singh's case is clearly attracted and
sentence of death is called for.
 We are unable to persuade: ourselves that a sentence of
imprisonment for life will be adequate in the
circumstances of the crime
 We therefore fully uphold the view concurrently taken by
the Sessions Court and the High Court that extreme
penalty of death requires to be imposed on appellants
(1) Machhi Singh (2) Kashmir Singh son of Arjan Singh
(3) Jagir Singh.

Bhavil Pandey
THANK YOU

Bhavil Pandey