Machhi Singh and Others v. State of Punjab

1983 (3) SCR 413 · 1983 AIR 957 · 1983 SCC (3) 470

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
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: M.P. Thakkar, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan (judgment by Thakkar, J.)
Citation: 1983 (3) SCR 413
Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 957; 1983 SCC (3) 470 (as printed in the judgment)
Provisions: Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 302 (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 103(1)); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 354(3) (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s. 393(3), owner-supplied equivalence)

Headnote

Sensitive matter. The underlying appeals concern killings that include children. The extracts use only the Court's statements of principle and the final order; no victim or child is named. Flagged for the owner's decision (the plan marked it not sensitive; the owner's rule treats matters involving minors as sensitive).

Murder · IPC s. 302 (BNS s. 103(1)) · Death sentence: rarest of rare cases · Aggravating and mitigating circumstances · Balance sheet of circumstances

The case, in the Court's words

In the present group of appeals we are now concerned with the death sentence imposed on appellants (i) Machhi Singh (ii) Kashmir Singh; (iii) Jagir Singh by the Sessions Court as confirmed by the High Court. [SCR p. 434]

Held

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. [SCR p. 431]
(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 alongwith the circumstances of the ’crime’. [SCR p. 433]
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. [SCR p. 433]
(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. [SCR p. 433]
(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 ? [SCR p. 433]
In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh’s case (supra) will have to be culled out and applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentences arises. [SCR p. 432]

Result

Appeals preferred by appellant Mohinder Singh being [...] Crl. Appeals Nos. Crl. 79/81 & 86 of 1981 are allowed. [...] In regard to the rest of the appeals by the rest of the appellants the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts are confirmed and all the appeals shall stand dismissed. [...] The death sentence imposed on the appellants named hereafter viz (i) Machhi Singh (ii) Kashmir Singh s/o Arjan Singh; (iii) Jagir Singh, having been confirmed, the sentence shall be executed in accordance with law. [SCR pp. 436-437]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Followed in Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh (28-11-2018), para 13, where the death sentence was set aside because the questions in this judgment were not answered.

The headnote consists of extracts from the Court's judgment, selected by The Daily Bench for convenience. The selection is not part of the judgment, is not a law report and should not be cited. It may contain errors; rely on the official judgment. Library reference TDB-LL BNS-103/04 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.