Author: Shruthika. S, Tamil Nadu National Law University
To the Point
The ‘Rarest of rare’ doctrine constitutes the bedrock of India’s death penalty jurisprudence functioning as a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary imposition of capital punishment. The doctrine finds its origin in a landmark Supreme Court decision in the Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab judgment of 1980; it states that the death sentence must be imposed only when the crime is so exceptionally heinous that life imprisonment is incapable of doing justice to the demands of justice or of the public interest..Since its inception, this doctrine has been the guiding principle for courts in evaluating whether a particular offense warrants the ultimate penalty. However, the application of this principle often remains fraught with judicial discretion, evolving societal values, and contextual complexities.
Two recent cases the murder of Sharon Raj by SS Greeshma in Kerala and the rape and murder of a young doctor at RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata have brought this doctrine to the forefront, exemplifying its nuanced and sometimes differing application.. While both cases involved brutal acts, the sentencing outcomes differed markedly, revealing the doctrine’s subjective contours and raising critical questions about its consistent enforcement.
Abstract
The imposition of the death penalty in India is governed by a stringent judicial principle known as the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, established to ensure capital punishment is reserved solely for crimes of exceptional gravity. This article critically examines the application of this doctrine through the lens of two recent and contrasting cases: the Sharon Raj murder case in Kerala and the RG Kar Medical College rape and murder case in Kolkata. By analyzing the factual matrix, judicial reasoning, and sentencing outcomes in these landmark trials, this article highlights the complexities and inherent subjectivities involved in applying the ‘rarest of rare’ principle. It further explores the doctrine’s role in balancing societal demands for justice with constitutional protections against arbitrary capital punishment, underscoring ongoing debates about fairness, consistency, and reform in India’s criminal justice system.
Use of Legal Jargon
India’s legal framework recognizes capital punishment under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for a narrow range of offenses, including murder under Section 302 IPC. Nevertheless, the Constitution of India, through Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), mandates that death sentences be imposed sparingly and justly.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bachan Singh firmly established the ‘rarest of rare’ test to filter out cases where capital punishment is justified. The Court emphasized that the death penalty should be a last resort, applicable only when “The alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.” Subsequent judgments have elaborated on criteria such as the manner of commission, motive, impact on society, and possibility of reform while determining the appropriateness of the death sentence.
The doctrine reflects a dual judicial responsibility: to condemn and punish the most egregious offenses and to protect the fundamental rights of the accused by ensuring a measured and fair approach.
Case Study:
The Sharon Raj Murder Case
The Sharon Raj case arose from a deeply premeditated and chilling murder committed by SS Greeshma in Kerala. The accused, a 24-year-old woman, was convicted of poisoning her boyfriend, Sharon Raj, by administering a pesticide-laced ayurvedic concoction. In the course of the verdict, the Trial Court sentenced Greeshma to death, thereby clear in its application of the ‘Rarest of rare’ doctrine.
The court’s reasoning was anchored on several aggravating factors. First, the crime was deliberate and carefully planned, rather than an impulsive act driven by passion or provocation.
Greeshma’s betrayal of personal trust and the methodical use of poison exhibited extreme cruelty and moral depravity. Additionally, the accused’s conduct during the investigation attempting to mislead authorities signified a lack of remorse and an attempt to evade accountability. While mitigating factors such as Greeshma’s youth and absence of prior criminal history were acknowledged, the court concluded these were insufficient to outweigh the aggravating elements.
This case exemplifies the rigorous application of the ‘Rarest of rare’ test, where the nature of the offense, the offender’s intent, and the societal impact collectively justified the death penalty. It reasserted that capital punishment remains a tool reserved for crimes that “shock the collective conscience” of society, into etching the judiciary’s pledge to deter such heinous crimes.
RG Kar Medical College Rape and Murder Case
In contrast, the RG Kar case involved the horrific rape and murder of a young doctor within the premises of the RG Kar Medical College Hospital in Kolkata. The accused, Sanjay Roy, was found guilty; however, the court opted for life imprisonment rather than the death penalty.
Despite the brutal nature of the crime, the sentencing judge exercised judicial restraint, citing that the circumstances did not meet the ‘Rarest of rare’ threshold. The Courts have stressed that death penalty should not be granted only in response to public clamour and the bare heinousness of the offence but should take into account the background of the offender, possibility of reform, and mitigating circumstances. Sanjay Roy’s clean record and prospect of rehabilitation were considered in deciding for life sentence.
This verdict highlighted the judiciary’s cautious approach, reflecting an adherence to the constitutional mandate of fair trial and proportionality in sentencing. It underscored the principle that capital punishment is not a default response to gruesome crimes but is reserved for cases where society’s interest in retribution and deterrence unequivocally demands it.
The proof
The contrasting sentences in the cases of Sharon Raj and RG Kar illustrate the inherent subjectivity involved in the determination of whether a case falls into the category of rarest of the rare. Both cases fell within the heinous spectrum of crimes and offended the public conscience, but the courts diverged in opinions based on the distinguishing features of each case.
The Sharon Raj case’s premeditated, calculated murder with betrayal of personal trust and deceitful conduct marked it as warranting the highest punishment. Conversely, the RG Kar case, though equally appalling, was tempered by considerations of the accused’s potential for reform and absence of a prior criminal history.
These discrepancies reveal the challenges courts face in balancing the retributive and reformative aspects of criminal justice. While the doctrine aims to standardize death penalty imposition, judicial interpretation inevitably varies with the facts and socio-legal contexts, highlighting an ongoing tension between uniformity and discretion.
The Doctrine’s Role in Upholding Constitutional Safeguards
India’s constitutional framework prioritizes the right to life as sacrosanct and, therefore, demands caution in meting out its ultimate punishment, capital punishment. The Rarest of rare doctrine acts as a protective shield against unfair and excessive use of the penalty of death and ensures that such punishment is truly meted out only in rare cases.
This doctrine reflects a commitment to human dignity and proportionality in sentencing, principles reinforced by international human rights norms advocating for the abolition or strict regulation of capital punishment. Its application in recent cases reaffirms India’s unique position in balancing societal demands for justice with evolving standards of fairness and humanity.
Challenges and Debates Surrounding the Doctrine
However, much criticism has been rendered toward its vagueness as well as its inconsistent application. Since what constitutes truly rare offences is subjective, different courts and even different judges may hold different views on what constitutes a ‘rarest of rare’ offence, thereby rendering sentencing unpredictable and non-uniform.
Moreover, societal pressures, media influence, and political factors sometimes complicate judicial independence in death penalty cases. The discretion afforded to judges, while essential for contextual fairness, can result in unpredictable outcomes and perceptions of arbitrariness.
There is also an ongoing debate about the doctrine’s adequacy in contemporary times, with human rights activists calling for the complete abolition of capital punishment, arguing that life imprisonment should be the maximum penalty irrespective of crime severity.
Conclusion
The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine remains a critical and evolving feature of India’s criminal justice system, designed to ensure that the death penalty is imposed only in cases warranting exceptional condemnation. The cases of Sharon Raj and RG Kar illustrate the doctrine’s practical challenges and judicial balancing act, reflecting the nuanced considerations courts must navigate in sentencing decisions.
Since it is highly subjective, this doctrine that has been kept away from arbitrary death sentences requires investigation and a highly scrutinous process with transparent reasoning and constitutional safeguards. With the progress of India, thereby, later discussions and reforms should consider working on clarifying and developing this application of the ‘Rarest of rare’ principle in such a way as to ensure justice is met fairly, consistently, and humanely.
FAQS
1. What is the ‘Rarest of rare’ doctrine?
The ‘Rarest of rare’ doctrine limits the death penalty to only the most exceptional cases where the crime is so brutal and inhuman that life imprisonment is clearly inadequate. It was laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) to ensure the death penalty is used only as an exception.
2. How do courts determine if a case is ‘Rarest of rare’?
Courts assess factors like brutality, premeditation, victim vulnerability, and public impact, while also weighing mitigating circumstances like the offender’s age, lack of prior record, or mental condition. These were outlined in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983).
3. Why was the death penalty upheld in Sharon Raj’s case but not in RG Kar?
In Sharon Raj, the crime involved extreme premeditation and cruelty, with no signs of remorse making it a fit case for the death penalty. In RG Kar, the convict’s lack of criminal history, procedural lapses, and possibility of reform led to a life sentence instead.
4. Does public opinion influence ‘Rarest of rare’ sentencing?
While courts sometimes consider societal conscience, they caution against letting public outrage dictate sentencing, as seen in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) and Nirbhaya case(2012).
5. Is the ‘Rarest of Rare’ doctrine India’s constitutional safety valve or its moral pressure cooker?
The ‘Rarest of Rare’ doctrine was meant to act as a safety valve a way to prevent the overuse of the death penalty and make sure it is used only in the most serious cases. But in practice, it sometimes works like a pressure cooker, where public anger and media pressure push the courts to give the harshest punishment, especially in high-profile cases like Nirbhaya. At the same time, in cases involving poor or marginalized victims, the doctrine may not get applied as strongly, and the accused may avoid the death penalty even if the crime was brutal.
So, while the doctrine is part of our legal system to ensure fairness, it is not always used equally, and public opinion often influences how it works more than the law itself.
