Download The Doctrine of 'Rarest of Rare' Cases: A Critical Analysis of Capital Punishment in India and more Summaries Law in PDF only on Docsity!
"THE DOCTRINE OF RAREST OF RARE": A CRITICAL
ANALYSIS
Rajkumari, Research Scholar, Shri Venkateshwara University, Gajraula, Amroha, U.P. & Dr. Ripu Daman Pratap Singh, Research Supervisor, Shri Venkateshwara University, Gajraula, Amroha, U.P. ABSTRACT There is no statutory definition of 'rarest of rare'. It depends upon facts and circumstances of a particular case, brutality of the crime, conduct of the offender, previous history of his/her involvement in crime and chances of improving and combining him/her into the death penalty has always been a disputable issue all over the world. However, there can not be any dispute as to the fact that the global tendency is towards the abolition of extreme penalty. But Indian law still keeps on the capital punishment for a number of offences.The decision of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 is significant in this respect. In which the supreme court affirmed the constitutional validity of the death penalty. Maintaining the constitutional validity of the death sentence, the court set down the standards and norms to be followed in awarding death penalty. The proposals expressed in this case that the death penalty can only be awarded where the court is gratified that it is 'a rarest of rare' case, has time and again been repeated by the later benches. The principal of laid down by the court was further described in the decision of Machhi Singh case. This theory embarks upon that the person who has committed such a heinous offence he must also suffer the same issue. Death penalty is awarded to create a deterrent effect on society so that the people fear the consequences of the offence. In this research paper, the author will discuss about 'the doctrine of rarest of rare' cases. Key words: statutory, the 'rarest of rare' doctrine, brutality, significant, death penalty, awarded, gratified.
Introduction The capital punishment in India is based on the doctrine of 'the rarest of rare' cases. This Death penalty is one of the harshest punishments that are provided under the IPC which includes capital punishment to the accused for his wrongdoing. Here the question arises whether a state has right to take a life of a person, however he cross the any limit of barouseness. The people were divided into two groups about this question. First is moralists who feel that this penalty is necessary to deter the other like-minded person, Second is progressive, who argue that is only a judicial taking of life which court mandated.An analysis of criminal jurisprudence, will find that the death penalty is only given in the extreme or "rarest of rare cases" that involve a high level of crime, which poses a great danger to society.In deciding whether he deserves the death penalty, not only is the culpability of the act dangerously taken into account, but also the individual characteristics and circumstances and the gravity of the offence, must be taken into consideration. So the punishment should depend on the seriousness of the offender's act and the social response to it. Indian law does not have a consistent view of the death penalty nor does it prohibit it outright. The death penalty in India is limited to the rarest of the previous cases - such as Section- 121 (raising arms against the state), Section-302 (murder), Section-364A (kidnapping with ransom), and so on. Code in Punishment, 1860, Death.Recommend offenses punishable with the death sentence. The most widely recognized cases, including those of significant death sentences, are those of homicide following an animal operation and assault. The 'rarest of rare doctrine' can be divided into two sub-parts: Aggravating circumstances and Mitigating circumstances- in case of aggravating conditions, the judge may on his will force capital punishment yet for mitigating, the bench will not grant capital punishment under rarest of rare cases. Historical background Death penalty has been prevalent in India since time immemorial, however, the methods of implementing it have been changing from time to time.In ancient religious scriptures, there was a system of capital punishment for great readers.In Mahabharata and During the reign of the Mughals in India, the death penalty was given very barbarically. However, during the British rule, this barbaric heart-wrenching method of capital punishment was abandoned and only the method of hanging was adopted.Ramayana also there is a mention of execution of criminals.In
- The magnitude of the crime - when the proportion of crime is very high, for example, in cases of multiple murders.
- Personality of the Victim of the Murder - When the Victim of the Murder is an innocent child, a helpless woman or person (due to old age or infirmity), a public figure, etc. The scope of the principle of rarest of rare: In Jagmohan Singh v State of U.P. 1973, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, holding that it is not merely a deterrent but marks the rejection of the crime on the part of the society. The Court also felt that Indians could not afford to experiment with abolishing the death penalty. Again constitutionalism was upheld in the case of Bachchan Singh. Thus, the following propositions emerged from the case of Bachchan Singh: i. The extreme step of imposing the death penalty need not be applied except in cases of extreme conviction. ii. Before opting for the death penalty, the circumstances of the offender should be kept in mind. (increasing and decreasing conditions) iii. Life imprisonment is the rule and the death penalty is the exception. In other words, the death penalty should be imposed only in cases where life imprisonment proves to be a wholly insufficient punishment in relation to the exact circumstances of the offence. iv. There is a need to prepare a balance sheet of all the stimulating and mitigating conditions and the mitigating conditions should be given full importance so that a balance can be struck between the two. Cases in which there was involvement of an unusual offense which is unusual for any prudent person or any person in the society with a proper mind, as well as for lack of alternative punishment for the offence, which is equivalent to the Court Later coined as "rare to rare" condition. The court further widened the scope of rarest to rare by mentioning five criteria within which the rarest to rarest case was applied. Establishment of the doctrine The doctrine of 'the rarest of rare' case was established in the landmark case of Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, 1980. Where the constitutional bench raised question is regard to the
constitutional validity of death penalty for murder under section 302 of IPC, In Kehar Singh vs Delhi administration, the Apex Court affirmed capital punishment granted by the trial court and kept up by High Court to the three appellantse Kehar Singh,Balbir Singh and Sawant Singh for planning conspiracy and attaining murder of Smt .Indira Gandhi under section 302,120B,34 and 109 of IPC,1860.The court held that murder is one of the rarest of rare cases in which extraordinary punishment is sought for a professional murderer and planner. Dimensions of the doctrine According to the Supreme Court, the crime must be viewed from different angles such as the manner of committing the murder, the motive for the murder, the anti- social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime and the horrors and personally of the victim of the murder. Generally Courts award life imprisonment to convict in a murder case. Only in rarest of real cases murder convicts are given death penalty. Working of the 'Rarest of Rare Doctrine' The Supreme Court of India formulated the rare to rare cases doctrine in the Bachan Singh case to guide the discretion of sentencing judges in the choice of life or death sentences. It did not embellish on what the rarest of rarest cases are. Thus the question of providing guidelines for judges to exercise their discretion remained unresolved, leading to more confusion and contradiction in judicial decisions. Ultimately, in the machhi Singh case the supreme court provided a classification of cases from rarest to rarest. The essence of earlier judgements in the machhi Singh case which made a gentle attempt to provide equality of such classification is retained. In the judicial judgement of Dharm bhagre vs State of Maharashtra Dot had held that the question of punishment is a matter of judicial discretion. Relevant considerations in determining punishment include the motive, the magnitude of the crime, and the manner of its commission. Similarly in the case of Jagmohan Singh vs State of UP. Justice palekar speaking for a unanimous court,said that the death penalty can be given where the murder was disabolical in conception and brutal in its execution or was of a person of high status thereby shaking the society. The intention was to impose the death penalty in the worst of such cases. Analysis of Constitutional Validity of the 'Rarest of Rare Doctrine' The validity of the death sentence was sought only because it was under the watch of the
the offender. There are different approaches to the death penalty in India, they neither support nor avoid the issue altogether by limiting themselves to the rarest of the rarest. But things got complicated when crime increased and extreme acts of crime became common. Various criteria have been laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the Machi Singh case. The death penalty does not violate the provisions of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as it states that the right to life and personal liberty shall be given to any person so much as not to violate the rights of other people. The Law Commission report in 2015 stated that the concept of capital punishment should be abolished apart from terrorism-related offenses in order to protect the nation. Since India only carries out the death penalty in the rarest of rare cases, the rate of implementation of the death penalty is very low, as we can see that between 2004โ 2015 only 4 were executed. Conclusion Many countries have abolished the death penalty or capital punishment by justifying that it is barbaric and inhuman in nature and violates the right to life and liberty given to the citizens of the countries. However, if a valid opinion is to be taken, it would be correct to say that even in its brutal nature the deathpenalty is effective in reducing criminal offenses and discouraging criminals to some extent. The standard of rarest of rare cases is not fixed, but after doing a lot of research of the author, it can be said that such cases in which the people of the country demand capital punishment on a large scale, all those cases can be brought under this Doctrine. Like in the Nirbhaya case, every child of the country wanted that the culprits of Nirbhaya should be given death penalty as soon as possible and later those four convicts were also given death penalty. Therefore, in my opinion, capital punishment is constitutionally valid and reasonable provided it is given in cases of grevious and extreme Nature. Furthermore, in my opinion, a person, who neither values the life of others nor values the integrity of his/her own nation, should not be treated with empathy. Even though it is hard to quantify the crimes in terms of which crime deserves capital punishment, still, crimes of grevious nature like rape, terrorism and murder should always be awarded with capital punishment or death penalty.
References โ Vinay Naidoo, can society escape the noose? The death penalty in India, 166 (2005). โ Encyclopedia of chronology vol.1,148 (2005). โ Macchi Singh vs State of Punjab on 20 July 1983,SCC, 3 (413). โ Article- 14,19 and 21 of The Constitution of India,1950. โ Report no.262, The death penalty, Law Commission of India,2015. โ UN and The declaration of iiHuman Rights, (2020). โ Indian penal code 1860, - S.N. Mishra. โ Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1980,S.C 957. โ Kehar Singh vs Union of India 1989 AIR 653. โ Dharm bhagre vs State of Maharashtra. โ Jagmohan Singh vs State of UP, 1973,SSC 20. โ Section-354(3) of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. โ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. โ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(16 December 1966),Part - lll, Article 6(2). โ MahabharatShanti parv, Chapter- 267, pad 4-13. โ Criminology and Penology - Dr. N.V.Paranjape โ Supra see Note 3 โ This is drown up in the case of Macchi Singh vs State of Punjab, 1983,SC
