History:
Before the case of Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, the Supreme court in the case of Jagmohan v State of U.P held that Right to Equality, Freedom of Speech and Expression and right to life which are included in Articles 14, 19 and 21 did not violate death penalty. Granting of the death penalty was made in line with the procedure laid down by Article 21, right to life.

In another case of Rajendra Prasad v State of U.P, the court said that if the person is a continuous threat to social/ national security then awarding the death penalty would be justiciable. The Judge preceding over this case gave 3 categories of criminals:

1. White- collar offences
2. Anti-social offences
3. Eradicating a person who is a continuous killer.

 
Facts:
Bachan Singh was arrest for the murder of his wife. He was sentenced to life. After he served his sentence, he lived with his family, hukum Singh who was his cousin. Bachan Singh was convicted for the murder of Desa, Durga and Veeran.
Issues:

• Whether death penalty punishment provided under Section 302 of IPC is unconstitutional?
• Is article 19 applicable in determining the constitutionality of the contest provision in Section 302 of IPC?

Involved Statutes

• Section 302 IPC
• Article 19, 21 of Constitution of India
• Section 325(3) of CrPC

Indian Penal Code

• Section 302 - Punishment of murder: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable for fine.

Criminal Procedure Code

• Section 325 - Procedure when Magistrate cannot pass sentence sufficiently served: The Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the proceedings are submitted may, if he thinks fit, examine the parties and recall and examine any witness who has already given evidence in the case and may call for and take any further evidence, and shall pass such judgment, sentence or order in case he thinks fit, and as is according to law.

Constitution of India

1. Article 19 - Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc:
   1. to freedom of speech and expression.
   2. to assemble peaceably and without arms.
   3. to form associations or unions.
   4. to move freely throughout the territory of India.
   5. to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.
   6. to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

Article 21 Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioner argued that Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is violated by the death sentence applied to the murder offense listed in Section 302 of the IPC. The death penalty revokes every right guaranteed by Article 19(a) (g). The death penalty does not meet any societal need and does not constitute an unjustified restriction.

Respondent Arguments
According to the respondents, one must own property in a way that respects the rights of others, or in accordance with the Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas concept. They also argued that there are reasonable limitations on the rights protected by Article 19 and that these rights are not absolute. Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas means use your own property in such a way that you do not injure other people's.

Judgment:
The majority decision states that the Supreme Court denied the appeal. The Court denied both the objections to the legality of Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973 and the appeal challenging the validity of Section 302 of the IPC because it requires the death punishment.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains the death punishment. This was the main question that the Supreme Court had to decide. The court considered whether the Indian Constitution's Article 21 right to life was violated by the application of the death sentence.

The opposing notions of retaliation and deterrence about the intent behind the death punishment were deliberated by the court. It acknowledged that whereas some consider the death penalty to be a deterrent, others perceive it as a form of vengeance reserved for the worst offenses.

The death sentence should only be used in the most extreme circumstances, such as when the crime is incredibly severe and life in prison would not be a sufficient alternative punishment, according to the "rarest of the rare" theory established by the court. The court made it clear how crucial it is to take both aggravating and mitigating factors into account when determining a death penalty case's sentence. The severity of the offense may be considered an aggravating element, but the accused's age, upbringing, and absence of a past criminal history may be considered mitigating considerations.

The court stressed that while choosing among the death penalty and life in prison, the court of appeals should use its discretion with caution. The court made it clear that, to make sure that death penalties are not applied arbitrarily, the Supreme Court and the High Court should examine all death sentences.

Judgements After The Case:
The concept of the "rarest of rare" was clarified by the court in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab. The Court established a set of rules about the factors to be considered when determining whether a case qualifies as the "rarest of the rare."

• Method of operation: The Court said that a crime would be considered the "rarest of the rare" if it was so egregiously violent and horrible that it shocked society. An instance of this that is widely recognized is the Nithari murders. The death penalty was recently imposed on the offender who was found guilty of murder, attempted rape, kidnapping, and evidence destruction.
   
• The reason for the crime: A "rarest of rare" case is one in which the victim is deliberately targeted for terrible death, assassins are hired to torture and murder the victim, or the act is carried out with the intention of betraying the country.
   
• The gravity of the offense: The seriousness of the offense needs to be considered. For instance, killing every person who resides in a specific area or every member of a family.
   
• Victim of the crime: The crime would also fall under the category of "rarest of the rare" case if the victim is fragile, such as a minor, a senile person, or a mad person; or if the victim is a prominent personality who has gotten a great deal of affection from society.
   
• Balance sheet: The case's aggravating and mitigating elements must be taken into consideration while preparing a balance sheet. Before reaching the final judgment, the mitigating conditions must be fully considered and the aggravating and mitigating situations must be balanced.

Criticism Received
Justice Bhagwati, who was in the majority, asserted that the death penalty was arbitrary, discriminatory, and could be imposed in an unpredictable and capricious manner. It was also said that the case lacked clarity as it doesn't clarify the relationship between the mitigating and the aggravating factors. The factors such as the nature of the crime, age, mental state, background of the culprit.

Death Penalty In Today's World
In 2013, 778 death penalties were awarded in 22 countries. Iran had the highest which is led by Iraq by 169 then Saudi Arabia by 79, US by 39 and last is Somalia. Sudan and Yemen combined has 10 executions. The total figure doesn't not included China whose executions is by thousands. There were 23,392 death row imamates worldwide in the year of 2013.

The method which was used for execution was by hanging, beheading, lethal injection and shooting. In the present day, 98 countries have discontinued the capital punishment. In these countries, the capital punishment is given under extraordinary crimes. Other 35 countries are called abolitionist in practice; they have not awarded it for the past 10 years.

Conclusion:
For any detention to be awarded in both procedural and substantive way they should fall into the domain of The Golden Triangle, which include Article 14, 19 and 21. The golden triangle was held for the first time in the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India.It was stated that the fundamental rights which were given in the Article 19(1), were not absolute and conclude that Section 302 IPC was deemed constitutionally.

One more minority viewpoint stated that it is challenging to determine whether the death sentence has any penological value. It's a challenging, intricate, and unsolvable problem. The justifications for the capital punishment and whether deterrence is achieved have been the subject of much discussion.

A significant number of individuals, spanning throughout the nation and the globe, including sociologists, lawmakers, jurists, judges, and administrators, continue to have negative views on the justification for apply.