This Case Commentary is written by Achal Dhanpal Gedam, a Fourth Year Law Student of Mnikchand Pahade Law College, chpt. Sambhaji nagar

CASE DETAIL

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

NAME OF THE CASE: MACHHI SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CITATION: 1983 AIR 957 1983 SCR (3) 413 1983 SCC (3) 470 1983 SCALE (2)1

BENCH: M. P. THAKAR, SYED MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN

CASE NUMBER: Criminal Appeal No 78-79, 80-84, 85-86, 87 and 88-89 of 1981and 419 of 1982

Date of Judgement: 20 July 1983

Petitioner: Machhi Singh and Others vs

Respondent: State of Punjab

MACHHI SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB

Abstract:

The case of Machi Singh v. State of Punjab is a landmark case in the Indian Penal Code dealing with capital punishment. The Machhi Singh case sheds light on the "rare of the rare" doctrine, a legal standard to guide when imposing the death penalty. This judgment was based on the principles laid down in the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, thus becoming the cornerstone of the Indian judiciary's approach to capital punishment. In this case, a three-judge panel strengthened the rare case watchdog by creating specific guidelines for the parameters to be used to determine whether a case falls under the rare case category.

Introduction:

The case of Machi Singh v. State of Punjab is a case that plays an important role in the Indian legal system. Three judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Machi Singh v State of Punjab came three years after the Bachan Singh case. In this case, the Supreme Court laid down the general principles of capital punishment. In this case, the court establishes certain criteria to assess when a case can be included in the category of rare cases.

Justice Thakar of the court said that there are five categories of cases that are considered to be very rare cases that carry a heavy penalty.

These are:

How murder is committed: When the murder is committed most brutally to incite serious hatred in the society.

Pretext for murder: When the murder is committed with a motive showing malice and malice.

Scale of crime: When many crimes are committed, for example, many families or mass murders in a particular community.

The character of the murdered:

As the victim:

An innocent child who cannot make an excuse for murder.

A helpless woman or a person weakened by old age.

When the victim is a human being.

When the killer is human, the killer is real.

Social crimes or crimes: When killing is done against a minority group, community, or others to intimidate them.

The fact of the case:

The case came out of a series of heinous crimes committed by Machhi Singh and his associates. On the night of 12 August 1977, Machhi Singh and his co-accused carried out a brutal act of revenge against a family in which seventeen people, including, Amar Singh and his sister Pyaru Bai were killed and three others were injured in this incident. Women and children were killed. These murders were premeditated and carried out in such a way that shocked the minds of the community. The main motive was to avenge a wrong done to one of Macchi Singh's relatives. Machi Singh and his accomplices were tried in a Magistrate's Court where they were found guilty of multiple charges including murder, criminal conspiracy, and disorderly assembly. Considering the heinousness and premeditated nature of the crimes, the trial court awarded the death sentence to Machi Singh and some of his co-accused. Fourteen convicts then filed appeals in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the appeal was dismissed and the death sentence imposed by the session courts was upheld. Subsequently, the accused approached the Supreme Court in 1983 through a special leave petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

The issue was raised before the Supreme Court:

● Macchi Singh and other prisoners should receive the death penalty under the rare doctrine enunciated in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab.

● What general guidelines should be followed to define the "rare of cases" criteria for imposing the death penalty?

● whether Machi Singh and other prisoners deserve the death penalty by applying the strictest conditions laid down under Bachan Singh vs the State of Punjab?

Arguments:

Petitioner's contention:

● As it was late at night, electricity had not reached the affected village at that time. And the light from the lamp cannot be said to be sufficient to enable the witnesses to see the prisoners.

● They also argued that in criminal cases, the evaluation of symbolic evidence should be done in the form of a candle hanging in the yard where the victims were lying on the bed.

● They argued that the statements of the two witnesses P.W. Amar Singh and P. Mohindo were not credible and the rest of the evidence was not sufficient or good to convict Machi Singh.

The contention of the respondent:

● Since electricity has not yet reached the village, the villagers are used to seeing things by flashlight. Their vision improves and they get used to the situation. Therefore, if this event were to be seen in a flashlight, rather than an electric light, it would be less noticeable. Therefore, the lack of clarity does not allow the accused to plead guilty.

● Identification is not a problem because the information is about witnesses.

● There is a lot of trouble in an old family.

● Since criminals do not cover their faces to hide their identity, it is not difficult to identify criminals by their faces, etc.

RELATED PROVISIONS:

Section 302 of IPC: Section 302 of IPC states that Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine. It states that when the conviction is for an offense punishable with death or, in the volition, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of time, the judgment shall state the reasons for the judgment awarded, and, in the case of a judgment of death, the special reasons for similar judgment.

Article 19 of the Indian constitution: States that – “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right shall include freedom to hold opinions without hindrance and to seek, admit and conduct information and ideas through any media and anyhow of borders.”

Article 20 of the Indian constitution:

Protection in respect of conviction for offences

• No person shall be condemned of any offense except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offense, nor be subordinated to a penalty lesser than that which might have been foisted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense

• No person shall be fulfilled and penalized for the same offense further than formerly

• No person indicted of any offense shall be impelled to be a substantiation against himself

Article 21 of the Indian constitution: It states that – no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by the law.

Article 22 of the Indian constitution: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases:

● No person who's arrested shall be detained in guardianship without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for similar arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal guru of his choice.

● Every person who's arrested and detained in guardianship shall be produced before the nearest justice within twenty- four hours of similar arrest banning the time necessary for the trip from the place of arrest to the court of the justice and no similar person shall be detained in guardianship beyond the said period without the authority of a justice.

Judgment: In its judgment, the Supreme Court appertained considerably to the" rare of rare" doctrine established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. This doctrine states that the death penalty should only be assessed in cases where the crime is so serious and the circumstances are so unusual that life imprisonment isn't an applicable option.

The Court in Bachan Singh laid down several principles to guide judges in deciding whether a case falls under this order. These principles include examining the nature of the crime, how it was committed, the purpose, the impact on society, and the character of the indicted. In the Macchi Singh No person who's arrested shall be detained in guardianship without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for similar arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal guru of his choice. The Supreme Court raised two questions that must be answered in individual cases before assessing the death penalty.

First, is the crime so extraordinary that no other discipline is necessary?

Second, indeed when mollifying factors are considered, are the circumstances of the death penalty still justified?

The circumstances of the case show that this case was an unprovoked murder, and the victims were unarmed and defenceless. The court upheld the opinion of the Union Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court that Machhi Singh and three others should be awarded the death penalty. Consequently, the court assessed the death penalty. The lack of substantiation that Mahinder Singh had the gun raises dubieties. In the case of Kashmir Singh, who's concerned, the death judgment was assessed by the trial court and upheld by the Supreme Court, because the 6- time-old boy failed in his sleep. The remaining prayers against the rulings of life imprisonment and other rulings assessed on each of them should be allowed. The death judgment awarded to the petitioners Machi Singh, Kashmir Singh, and Jagir Singh assured that the judgment would be carried out according to law. Death judgment has been specifically awarded to complainant Machi Singh in all cases. However, it's considered to have been executed in all the cases according to the nature, If the judgment is executed in one case.

Conclusion

The three-judge bench Supreme Court judgments in the Machi Singh case came three times after Bachchan Singh's first attempt to develop a further original frame for capital discipline. Agitating the reasons for carnal discipline, the Court in Machi Singh explored the reasons why society as a total doesn't accept a humane approach to carnal discipline. Machi Singh introduced common sense into the frame of the death penalty and linked five aspects that society expects judicial officers to address when assessing the death penalty.

References:

1. Machhi Singh And Others vs State of Punjab on July, 1983 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/545301/

2. Ruchika Mohapatra ‘Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab: Application of the Rarest of Rare doctrine’ (2024), Lawoctopus.com https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/macchi-singh-v-state-of-punjab/ accessed 10 Oct 2024.

3. Illa Dwivedi ‘Machhi Singh and Others vs State of Punjab: case analysis’ (2021), LawFoyer.in, https://lawfoyer.in/machhi-singh-and-others-v-state-of-panjabmachhi/ accessed 26 July 2021.