योग्य जोड्या जुळवा :
खटला : निर्णय
(a) मध्य प्रदेश सरकार वि. बाबुनाथ : (i) सर्वसाधारण अपवाद सिद्ध करण्याची जबाबदारी आरोपीची असते.
(b) बचनसिंग वि. पंजाब सरकार : (ii) जन्मठेपेचा कालावधी 20 वर्षे इतका गणला जावा.
(c) जी.एन. गोडसे वि. महाराष्ट्र सरकार : (iii) शिक्षेच्या धोरणाबाबत मार्गदर्शन
(d) एस.एन. भादोलकर वि. महाराष्ट्र सरकार : (iv) दुर्मिळातील दुर्मिळ गुन्ह्यासाठीच मृत्यूदंडाची शिक्षा दिली जावी.
पर्यायी उत्तरे :

The correct answer is Option B ((a)-(iii), (b)-(iv), (c)-(ii), (d)-(i)).

Key Points:
• Match of Landmark Case Laws and Rulings:
• State of M.P. v. Babunath: Laid down authoritative judicial principles/guidelines regarding sentencing policy and the proportionality of criminal punishment → (a) matches (iii).
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): The landmark Constitution Bench verdict laying down that capital punishment (death penalty) must be awarded only in the "rarest of rare cases" → (b) matches (iv).
• Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra (1961): Addressed Section 57 IPC, establishing that a sentence of imprisonment for life is not automatically 20 years but equivalent to 20 years only for calculating fractions of punishment; otherwise, it means imprisonment for the remainder of natural life unless remitted → (c) matches (ii).
• S.N. Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra: Reaffirmed under Section 105 of the Evidence Act that the burden of proving that the case falls within general exceptions lies squarely on the accused → (d) matches (i).
• Matching sequence: (a)-(iii), (b)-(iv), (c)-(ii), (d)-(i) matches Option 2.
• Key Takeaway: Bachan Singh formulated 'rarest of rare', Gopal Godse addressed life imprisonment fractions (20 years), and Bhadolkar clarified exception burden of proof.