Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab

Supreme Court of India · 20 July 1983 · 3 judges · 1983 AIR 957; 1983 SCR (3) 413; 1983 SCC (3) 470

Explaining how the Bachan Singh 'rarest of rare cases' rule is to be applied, the Court set out categories of murder that may call for death and confirmed three death sentences for a series of killings.

Facts

A feud between two families led to five attacks in quick succession in five neighbouring villages in Punjab on the night of 12 to 13 August 1977, in which seventeen persons, including women and children, were killed and three injured. The motive was reprisal. Machhi Singh, the common accused, and his companions were tried in five sessions cases. Four accused were sentenced to death and nine to life imprisonment, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the convictions and sentences. In the appeals the accused argued that the witnesses could not have identified them by the light of a lantern on a dark night, and challenged the evidence and the death sentences.

Questions before the Court

Could the eye witnesses reliably identify the accused by the light of a lantern?
Was the evidence, including a dying declaration recorded by the police and the evidence linking an accused with a rifle, sufficient to convict?
How is the 'rarest of rare cases' rule in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab to be applied, and were the death sentences justified?

What the Court held

The concurrent finding that the lantern gave enough light was upheld: villagers without electricity are used to seeing by lantern light, the accused were known to the witnesses, and they had not covered their faces.
One appellant was acquitted because the prosecution's own evidence showed the second rifle had been issued to another person, which raised a reasonable doubt about his part. A dying declaration recorded by the police, not a Magistrate, was acted on as it was found genuine and true.
The community may expect the death penalty when its collective conscience is shocked, judged by the manner of the murder, its motive, its anti-social or abhorrent nature, its magnitude, and the personality of the victim, such as an innocent child, a helpless woman or old person, or a public figure.
From Bachan Singh: death only in the gravest cases of extreme culpability; the circumstances of the offender as well as the crime must be considered; life imprisonment is the rule and death the exception; a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be drawn, giving full weight to mitigating ones.
The court should ask whether there is something uncommon about the crime making life imprisonment inadequate, and whether there is no alternative to death even after giving maximum weight to mitigating circumstances. Applying this, the death sentences on Machhi Singh and two co-appellants were confirmed; the other convictions were upheld.

Why it matters

On sentencing for murder, the judgment reads the 'rarest of rare cases' rule laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab into working guidelines: five categories of cases that may shock the collective conscience, four propositions drawn from Bachan Singh, including the balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and two questions a court should ask before choosing death over life imprisonment.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“But the community will not do so in every case. It may do so (in rarest of rare cases) when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty. The community may entrain such a sentiment when the crime is viewed from the platform of the motive for, or the manner of commission of the crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime”

Thakkar, J.Page 14 of the judgment

“Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.”

Thakkar, J.Page 15 of the judgment

“(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 ? If upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid proposition and taking into account the answers to the questions posed here in above, the circumstances of the case are such that death sentence is warranted, the court would proceed to do so.”

Thakkar, J.Page 15 of the judgment

“This argument has been rightly rebuffed by the Sessions Court and the High Court, on the ground that villagers living in villages where electricity has not reached as yet, get accustomed to seeing things in the light shed by the lantern. Their eyesight gets conditioned and becomes accustomed to the situation.”

Thakkar, J.Page 4 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Now: BNS 103 (NCRB correspondence table)
Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Now: BNS 190 (NCRB correspondence table)

Related judgments

Follows Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)“the rarest of rare cases rule prescribed in Bachan Singh's case (Supra) is clearly attracted and sentence of death is called for” (page 17)

Case and bench

Parties: Machhi Singh and Others v. State of Punjab
Case: Criminal Appeals Nos. 78-79, 80-84, 85-86, 87 and 88-89 of 1981 and 419 of 1982
Decided: 20 July 1983
Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J), Fazalali, Syed Murtaza, Varadarajan, A. (J)
Opinions: Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Thakkar, J.

Questions on this case

2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

Question 1 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) identified heads under which the collective conscience may demand the death penalty. Which of the following is NOT one of those heads?
1. A. Socio-economic background of the offender
2. B. Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime
3. C. Manner of commission of the murder
4. D. Personality of the victim of murder
Show the answer
A. Socio-economic background of the offender
Machhi Singh listed five heads: manner of commission of the murder, motive for its commission, anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime, magnitude of the crime, and personality of the victim. It also required a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The background of the offender is a mitigating consideration, not one of the five heads.