Machhi Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957

           Introduction

The decision in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab is a landmark judgment concerning the application of the death penalty. This case elaborates on the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which was first established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. The Machhi Singh case, delivered three years after Bachan Singh, carries immense significance in the debate over the death penalty in India. While Bachan Singh recognized the “rarest of rare” principle, the Machhi Singh judgment further elaborated on when and how this doctrine should be applied. Justice Thakkar, delivering the opinion of the court, identified five distinct categories of cases where capital punishment may be justified due to their exceptionally heinous nature.

Facts of the Case

The case arose from a series of violent incidents orchestrated by Machhi Singh and his associates on the night of 12 August 1977. Motivated by revenge, the group attacked a family, killing 17 people (including women and children) and injuring three others. The killings were pre-planned, systematic, and executed in a manner that shocked the conscience of the community.

The trial court convicted Machhi Singh and others under charges including murder (Sec. 302 IPC), conspiracy, and unlawful assembly, sentencing them to death. On appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the convictions and the death penalty. The convicts then approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Should Machhi Singh and the co-accused be awarded the death penalty in light of the “rarest of rare” principle from Bachan Singh?
2. What broad guidelines should courts follow in determining whether a case qualifies as “rarest of rare”?
3. Were the strict conditions of Bachan Singh satisfied in this case to justify capital punishment?

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• At the time of the incident, the village had no electricity, and the faint light from lanterns was insufficient for reliable identification of the accused.
• The prosecution’s reliance on eyewitnesses (PW Amar Singh and PW Mohindo) was questionable, as their testimony lacked consistency.
• Circumstantial evidence was weak and insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Villagers were accustomed to living without electricity and could recognize people even in dim lantern light.
• The accused had not concealed their identities, making recognition easier for witnesses.
• The brutality of the attack, its premeditated nature, and the involvement of entire families made the case fit squarely into the rarest of rare category.

Relevant Legal Provisions

• Section 302, IPC – Punishment for murder: death or life imprisonment. Courts must record special reasons when awarding the death penalty.
• Article 19, Constitution – Freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 20, Constitution – Protection in respect of conviction for offences (no double jeopardy, no retrospective punishment, no self-incrimination).
• Article 21, Constitution – Right to life and personal liberty, except by due process of law.
• Article 22, Constitution – Safeguards in cases of arrest and detention.

Judgment

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles from Bachan Singh and emphasized that the death penalty must be imposed only when life imprisonment is inadequate to serve justice. The Court formulated two guiding questions:

1. Is the crime of such exceptional depravity that any lesser punishment would be insufficient?
2. Even after considering mitigating factors, do the circumstances still demand the death penalty?

Applying these principles, the Court held that the mass killings by Machhi Singh and his associates, targeting unarmed and innocent victims, fell under the rarest of rare category. The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for Machhi Singh and three others while commuting some sentences of life imprisonment for co-accused.

Conclusion

The Machhi Singh ruling solidified the judicial framework for imposing capital punishment in India. By identifying five categories of cases where the death penalty may be justified, the Court brought clarity and structure to the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The judgment highlighted society’s expectation that exceptionally brutal and socially disruptive crimes should be met with the severest punishment. Thus, the case remains one of the most significant precedents on capital punishment in Indian criminal jurisprudence.