The ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine

  • The Supreme Court, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but limited its application to the “rarest of rare” cases. 
  • Courts must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine whether a death sentence is warranted.

Aggravating Circumstances:

  • Pre-planned, brutal, and depraved murders.
  • Murders of public servants or law enforcement officers on duty.

Mitigating Circumstances:

  • Emotional or mental disturbance of the accused.
  • Young or advanced age.
  • Potential for reformation and rehabilitation.

Evolving Interpretations

The understanding of these circumstances has evolved, with varying emphasis on factors like age and the possibility of reform. For instance:

  • Age: In Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012), the young age of the accused was considered a mitigating factor. However, inconsistency in considering age was noted in Shankar Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013).
  • Nature of Offence: In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the court emphasized societal conscience, often prioritizing crime severity over the possibility of reform.

Focus on Reformation

  • In Bachan Singh and subsequent cases like Santosh Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009), the SC stressed that the state must provide evidence that the convict cannot be reformed, with a presumption against the death penalty. 
  • Clear, objective evidence is crucial to ensure fairness in sentencing.

Sentencing Procedures

  • A separate hearing after conviction is essential for determining the penalty. However, the SC has raised concerns over the adequacy of such hearings, particularly when they occur on the same day as the conviction. 
  • In Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra (2020), lack of an effective hearing led to commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.

Published by Pragyanxetu

One Earth. One Future