Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: LAWUPNEXT

Context:

Sanjoy Roy was sentenced to life imprisonment by a sessions court in the RG Kar Medical College Rape and Murder Case.

Details

Despite strong arguments by the CBI for the death penalty, the court adhered to the Supreme Court's principle of imposing the death sentence only in the "rarest of rare" cases.

About the "rarest of rare" doctrine

The "rarest of rare" doctrine was established in the Bachan Singh v/s State of Punjab case (1980), it restricts the death penalty to exceptional cases where the offender cannot be reformed. The court outlined aggravating and mitigating circumstances to guide the decision. The death penalty should be imposed only when the crime shocks the collective conscience of society.

What are the aggravating circumstances that could lead to the death penalty?

• Deliberate and brutal acts of murder.
• Extraordinary monstrosity or exceptional cruelty.
• The murder of a public servant, police officer, or armed forces personnel while on duty.

These factors make the crime particularly heinous, potentially leading to the death penalty.

What are the mitigating circumstances that could prevent the death penalty?

• The offender was under extreme emotional or mental disturbance.
• The age of the offender (young or old).
• The likelihood of the offender posing a continued threat to society.
• The potential for reform or rehabilitation.
• The offender acted under someone else’s influence or believed their actions were morally justified.
• The offender suffered from a mental illness, that make them unable to understand the criminality of their actions.

How the courts evolved in understanding mitigating and aggravating circumstances over the years?

Over time, courts have added new factors to the original list of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. For example, the age of the accused is now considered more carefully, with young age frequently seen as a sign of reform potential.  

Courts have also focused more on the possibility of reform, emphasizing the need for clear evidence to show that the offender cannot be rehabilitated.

Supreme Court's stance on the reform in death penalty cases

In the Bachan Singh case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the government must prove the offender's irreformability. The court requires clear evidence, as seen in Santosh Bariyar v/s State of Maharashtra (2009), where the Court stated that sentencing decisions must be objective and based on the likelihood of rehabilitation.

The stage of trial is critical because, as per Bachan Singh case, a separate hearing is required after conviction to argue why the death penalty should not be imposed.

The Dattaraya v/s State of Maharashtra (2020) case highlighted the importance of a meaningful and effective sentencing hearing, suggesting that same-day sentencing usually lacks proper consideration of mitigating possibilities.

Way Forward

The current method of sentencing in death penalty cases is complicated by the inconsistent and subjective application of the "rarest of rare" doctrine. Clearer guidelines need to be established to address mitigating circumstances and potential reforms. 

Must Read Articles: 

DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA

DEATH PENALTY AND RELATED ISSUES

Source: 

INDIAN EXPRESS