SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(SC) 190

M.P.THAKKAR, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A.V.VARADARAJAN
Machhi Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent


Advocates:
D.D.SHARMA, H.Singh, R.C.Kohli, R.L.Kohli

Judgment

THAKKAR, J.:- Protagonists of the "an eye for an eye" philosophy demand "death-for death". The Humanists on the other. hand press for the other extreme viz., "death in-no-case". A synthesis has emerged in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 wherein the "rarest-of-rare-cases" formula for imposing death sentence in a murder case has been evolved by this Court. Identification of the guidelines spelled out in Bachan Singh in order to determine whether or not death sentence should be imposed is one of the problems engaging our attention, to which we will address ourselves in due course.

2. A feud between two families has resulted in tragic consequences. Seventeen lives were lost in the course of a series of five incidents which occurred in quick succession in five different villages, situated in the vicinity of each other in Punjab, on a night one would like to forget but cannot forget, the night between August 12 and August 13, 1977. The seventeen persons who lost their lives and the three who sustained injuries included men, women and children related to one Amar Singh and his sister Piaro Bai.

3. In this connection one Machhi Singh and his eleven companions, close





































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

No cases identified as overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law. All provided snippets show positive judicial treatment (primarily citation, reliance, following, or elaboration) without explicit negative treatment indicators such as "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated," "criticized," or "questioned."

**POSITIVE TREATMENT / GOOD LAW (Followed, Relied Upon, Reaffirmed, Elaborated, Guidelines Applied):**

All cases in the list e.g., [State of Maharashtra VS Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda - Crimes (1983), Deena Alias Deen Dayal: Lal Chand Misra: Hazamohideen: Amar Singh VS Union Of India: State Of U. P. : Union Of India: State Of M. P. - 1983 0 Supreme(SC) 296, Deena @ Deen Dayals etc. VS Union of India etc. - Crimes (1983), Deena @ Deen Dayals etc. VS Union of Indias etc. - 1983 0 Supreme(SC) 306, Ulahannan and Others v. State of Kerala - 1984 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6, etc. – total of 300+ snippets].

**Explanation:** Every snippet treats the referenced cases (predominantly *Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab* (1983) 3 SCC 470 and *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab* (1980) 2 SCC 684) positively. Common phrases include: "reliance is placed upon" (State of Maharashtra VS Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda - Crimes (1983)), "tests laid down in" (State of Maharashtra VS Rampal and 7 others - Crimes (1988)), "guidelines laid down by the Constitution Bench have been reiterated in" (Shamshul Kanwar VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Crimes (1995)), "following the ratio in" (Panchhi vs State of U.P. - 1998 Supreme(Online)(SC) 90), "elaborated the ratio in" (Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao VS State Of A. P. - 1996 6 Supreme 356), "formulated the following propositions" (Kamta Tiwari VS State of Madhay Pradesh - 1996 6 Supreme 482), "principles laid down... were reiterated" (Vinod Malhotra VS State of Rajasthan - Crimes (1996)), "approved the decision" (In Reference : Received from III Addl. Sessions Judge, Satna VS Gudda @ Dwarikendra - 2012 0 Supreme(MP) 687), "reiterated" (Aloke Nath Dutta VS State Of W. B. - 2007 2 Supreme 664), "landmark judgment" (Balram Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh - 2007 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 74), "watersheds in the search for jurisprudential principles" (Sunil Dutt Sharma VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 956), and hundreds of similar citations applying "rarest of rare" guidelines, "aggravating/mitigating circumstances," or sentencing tests. No countervailing negative language appears in any snippet. The list consists entirely of subsequent cases approvingly citing these precedents for death penalty/sentencing frameworks.

None. All treatments are unambiguously positive based on explicit language of reliance, following, reiteration, and application of guidelines across every snippet. No ambiguous, qualified, or potentially negative phrasing (e.g., "distinguished," "limited," or "not applicable") observed.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top