This article is written by Pubali Chatterjee and Sayani Das, from Amity University, Kolkata

Introduction

There is no strait-jacket formula for the application of the ‘rarest of rare doctrine’. In a criminal case, the trial consists of two main essentials i.e., the nature and the gravity of the crime. Based on the two essentials the magnitude of the punishment can be carved out. The Judicature of India is under a commitment to find some kind of harmony among aggravating and mitigating conditions on one hand and cry of the general public on the other and also to add the grounds should be remarkably sound so that there is no option left other than death penalty. In recent times, the Apex Court has maintained capital punishment granted to the blamed for Nirbhaya rape-cum-murder case subsequent to calling it as “rarest of rare” case and outrageous discipline is conceded for guaranteeing equity. In India, “rarest of rare” regulation is the measuring stick for giving the death penalty. 

The Indian laws don’t hold a consistent point of view of the death penalty yet neither do they deter it totally. Capital punishment in India has been limited to the rarest of rare cases- like Section 121 (taking up arms against the state), Section 302 (murder), Section 364A (kidnapping with ransom), and so on of the Indian Penal Code 1860, recommend offenses culpable with the death penalty. The most widely recognized cases including significant death row convicts are fear based oppression and assault cum murder cases. 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 conditions, the Bench will not grant capital punishment under rarest of rare cases.

Inception of the ‘rarest of rare doctrine’

In Nathuram Godse v Crown (Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi)- the instance of Nathuram Godse is the principal instance of rarest of rare nature that occurred in free India. On the night of 30th January 1948, Nathuram Godse shot dead Mahatma Gandhi in a petition meeting at Birla Mandir in Delhi. After a delayed preliminary, Justice Amarnath granted him capital punishment which was collectively affirmed by the three adjudicators of Punjab High Court.

In Kehar Singh v Delhi Administration, the apex court affirmed capital punishment granted by the trial court and kept up by High Court to the three appellants Kehar Singh, Balbir Singh and Satwant Singh for planning conspiracy and attaining murder of Smt. Indira Gandhi u/s 302, 120B, 34, 107 and 109 of IPC. The court held that the homicide is the rarest of rare cases in which extraordinary punishment is called for a professional killer and his schemers. 

In the astonishing instance of Santosh Kumar Singh v Union Territory of Delhi (Mattoo Murder case), however Santosh Kumar Singh was indicted for raping the person in question and breaking each bone in her body his conduct was as yet not considered savage enough to mark the case “rarest of rare”.  

In India, a death penalty used to be compulsory u/s 303 of IPC. In any case, in 1983 Supreme Court in Mithu Singh v State of Punjab proclaimed segment 303 ultra vires the Constitution on the ground that it abuses article 14 as likewise right to life presented under article 21.

Application of the doctrine

The detailing of rarest of rare, much the same as some other subject, isn’t liberated from analysis by others. Numerous adversaries have called attention to a perspective on this principle being vague and dependent upon different translations. A strong analysis emerged from Justice Bhagwati himself who as he would like to think forewarned saying, such a basis would offer ascent to a more noteworthy measure of subjectivity in dynamic and would settle on the choice whether an individual will live happy on the organization of the Bench. He fights the way that the life of a wrongdoer depending on the psyches of seat is plainly violative of the Fundamental Rights revered in Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

It has likewise been contended that the choices corresponding to this regulation are given subjectively. For example, when an individual, associating the loyalty with his better half cut off her head and executed her, the Supreme Court had no uncertainty in ordering it as a rarest of rare case and forcing death.

The choice in Amruta v. State of Maharashtra gets pertinent here, as a situation where the court would not give demise in any event, when it included comparative realities as the case previously mentioned. The court decided that a determined, heartless and ruthless homicide of a young lady of extremely youthful age subsequent to submitting assault on her without a doubt fell in the classification of rarest of rare. 

But in Kumudi Lal v. State of U.P, which is likewise a case including assault and murder of a fourteen-year-old young lady, the court wouldn’t affirm capital punishment. In Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab, a young lady was fiercely assaulted. She passed on in this manner because of exorbitant dying. Both the District and High court indicted the condemned under section 302 and condemned him to death. In any case, the Supreme Court held that the demise was not deliberate however the assault was severe. 

Analysis of constitutional validity

The lawfulness of capital punishment was solicited just because under the watchful eye of the Apex court on account of Jagmohan Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh. Section 302 of IPC was tested as violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court maintained the sentence of death as constitutional and held that considerably subsequent to expecting that right to life is the establishment stone of the opportunity identified under Article 19 and that no law can be sanctioned which removes the life of an individual except if it is sensible and out in the open intrigue. In this way, it is hard to hold that death penalty as such was outlandish or not required in broad daylight intrigue. In the event that the whole strategy for a criminal preliminary under the CrPC for showing up at a sentence of death is legitimate then the inconvenience of capital punishment as per the technique built up by law can’t be supposed to be illegal. 

It was contended that the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, has given another interpretative measurement to Articles 14, 19 and 21, and their interrelationship in each law of reformatory confinement both in its procedural and considerable viewpoint must breeze through the assessment of every one of the three articles. In any case, the Court dismissed this argument. It was held that Article 19 not at all like Article 21, doesn’t manage the right to life and individual freedom and isn’t appropriate for making a decision about the lawfulness of the arrangements of Section 302 IPC. As respects Article 21, it was perceived that in the said article, the establishing fathers perceived the privilege of the State to deny an individual of his life or individual freedom as per just, reasonable, sensible and fair technique set up by law, and there are a few signs in the Constitution which show that the Constitution producers were completely discerning of the presence of capital punishment, for example, Entries 1 and 2 in List II, article 72(1)(c), article 161 and article 34.

Working of the doctrine

The Doctrine of Rarest of Rare came up on account of Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab. The Supreme Court, for this situation, tried to remove a precept especially for offences at fault with death to diminish the uncertainty for courts in regards to when to go for the most elevated discipline of the land. By most of 4:1, the defendability of capital punishment was maintained by the Supreme Court and a rule was set out that capital punishment must be encircled distinctly in the rarest of rare cases. However, the extent of this expression was left unclear.

The Ratio Decidendi of Bacchan Singh’s case is that capital punishment is sacred in the event that it is endorsed as an option for the offence of homicide and if the ordinary sentence recommended by law for homicide is detainment forever. This implies capital punishment must be forced on rarest of rare cases where an elective choice is avoided. 

Afterward, on account of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab the court attempted to set down rules for surveying whether wrongdoing fell into the class of rarest of rare.

In the Macchi Singh’s case, the court set out specific standards for surveying when a case could fall under the ambit of rarest of rare. 

The models are investigated as beneath: 

1. Way of commission of homicide- when the homicide is submitted in an incredibly fierce, detestable, revolting, or unforgivable way in order to stir exceptional and extraordinary anger of the network; for example, 
2. When the victim’s house is determined to fire with the aim to prepare him alive. 
3. At the point when the casualty is tormented to cruel acts so as to realize his/her passing. 
4. At the point when the body of the casualty is ravaged or cut in pieces in a ruthless way. 
5. Rationale in the commission of homicide When all out evil and savagery are the thought processes behind a homicide.
6. Socially despicable nature of the wrongdoing: When a homicide of an individual having a place with one of the regressive classes is submitted. 
7. Size of the wrongdoing when the extent of the wrongdoing is gigantic, for example, in instances of numerous homicides. 
8. Character of casualty of homicide When the homicide casualty is a blameless youngster, a vulnerable lady or individual (because of mature age or sickness), an open figure, and so forth.

For the situation of Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court decided that, the rarest of rare decree fills in as a rule in upholding Section 354(3) and sets up the arrangement that life detainment is the standard and demise discipline is an exception. Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code commanded capital punishment for all guilty parties carrying out an actual existence punishment. This segment was struck down as being held illegal. The year 2008 represented the instance of Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, wherein the court governed precisely on what might comprise a rarest of rare case.

The Court held that a capital punishment would be granted just, when a homicide is submitted in a very ruthless, unusual or obnoxious way in order to excite serious and extraordinary irateness of the community.

Conclusion

The authors submissively present the accompanying suggestions so as to direct and moderate the discussions relating and rotating around the Doctrine of Rarest of Rare: 

1. Normalized rules ought to be set down:

A uniform rule should be set out that envelops grounds under which cases can be distinguished as rarest of rare.

2. The choice must be taken with due consideration and sensibility: 

While granting the discipline of capital punishment, it must be remembered that, in spite of the fact that, the charged has submitted a ruthless demonstration, if there is any opportunity that demonstrates that the blamed will not deliver further mischief to the general public, on this ground, he/she should not be given the death penalty. 

3. Capital punishment ought not be postponed after its declaration: 

In Triveni Bai v. Territory of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that the execution procedure must be postponed on sensible grounds, so the accused may get a reasonable preliminary. In any case, it is recommended that there ought not be any deferral after the proclamation of capital punishment. This does not imply that the blame ought not be given the option to claim however it ought to be open just for a particular period. As of late what acquire need is the thing that kind of cases ought to be marked as rarest of uncommon. The judgment likewise unmitigatedly uncovered the profound established man centric society. On dissecting the above-expressed choices, it very well may be inferred that the rarest of uncommon precepts has become ‘judge-driven’. It’s an ideal opportunity to reclassify ‘rarest of rare’.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: