The Rarest of Rare Doctrine: A Critical Analysis of the Death Penalty in India, Summaries of Law

Download The Rarest of Rare Doctrine: A Critical Analysis of the Death Penalty in India and more Summaries Law in PDF only on Docsity!

THEORY OF RAREST OF

RARE

INTRODUCTION

• CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA IS BASED ON THE DOCTRINE OF 'THE RAREST

OF RARE' CASES.

• THE WORD ‘CAPITAL’ IS DERIVED FROM THE LATIN WORD ‘CAPITALIS’ WHICH

MEANS ‘OF THE HEAD

• MORALISTS WHO FEEL THAT THIS PENALTY IS NECESSARY TO DETER THE

OTHER LIKE-MINDED PERSON

• PROGRESSIVE, WHO ARGUE THAT IS ONLY A JUDICIAL TAKING OF LIFE WHICH

COURT MANDATED

• DEATH PENALTY IS ONLY GIVEN IN THE EXTREME OR "RAREST OF RARE CASES“

• DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA IS LIMITED TO THE RAREST OF THE PREVIOUS CASES

• THE 'RAREST OF RARE DOCTRINE' CAN BE DIVIDED INTO TWO SUB-PARTS:

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

THE 'RAREST OF THE RARE'

DOCTRINE

• (^) In 1980, in the Bachan Singh case the apex court proposed the rarest of rare doctrine and since then life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty the exception as in India it is awarded only in the gravest of cases.
• (^) In the Machhi Singh case, the court laid down certain criteria for assessing when a case could fall within the purview of rarest to rarest

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

• (^) the issue of whether the procedure given under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) pertaining to sentencing the convicted person is unconstitutional
• (^) In the present case, the accused, Bachan Singh, was convicted for the murder of two persons and was given the death sentence by the Sessions Judge, which was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• (^) This decision was further appealed but dismissed by the Supreme Court of India. The death penalty has always been a topic of debate, and this case stands as a landmark in Indian criminal law.
• (^) It addressed the constitutionality of the death penalty, established the importance of considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and introduced the guiding principle of the ‘rarest of rare doctrine’.
• This judgement has had a significant impact on the sentencing process in death penalty cases, aiming to maintain a balance between justice and the fundamental rights of convicted persons.

Facts of Bachan Singh v. State

of Punjab (1980)

• (^) Having previously been convicted for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the IPC, Bachan Singh served 14 years in prison. After his release, he resided with his cousin, Hukum Singh, and his family.
• (^) However, this living arrangement was objected to by the wife and children of his cousin. On July 4, 1977, the appellant committed an atrocious act by murdering three out of four children of his cousin using an axe.
• (^) Bachan Singh was thus convicted for the offence of committing the murder of Desa Singh, Durga Bai, and Veeran Bai by the Sessions Court. He was given the death penalty under Section 302 of the IPC. He appealed to the High Court; however, the Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the death sentence.
• (^) He then appealed to the Supreme Court and raised the question of whether the facts of the case would fall under the ambit of the ‘special reasons’ under Section 354(3) of CrPC, 1973

Issues raised

• (^) Whether the death penalty that has been provided as the punishment for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, is unconstitutional?
• (^) Whether the sentencing procedure stipulated in Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973, is unconstitutional insofar as it vests the courts with unguided and untrampled power and allows the death sentence to be imposed arbitrarily on an individual found guilty of any offence punishable with death or life imprisonment?

Contentions of the respondents

• (^) The rights guaranteed under Article 19 are not absolute in nature and are subject to certain reasonable restrictions.
• (^) The counsel for respondents argued that the death penalty serves as a powerful deterrent for the people, preventing them from committing heinous crimes and instilling fear in potential criminals.
• (^) They also argued that judges have the discretion to impose any penalty depending on the facts and circumstances of each case to promote justice.
• (^) The respondents further asserted that special reasons in this particular case justified the imposition of the death penalty, considering the past conduct of the convicted person.
• (^) As per the respondents, the death penalty was rightly imposed on the convicted person, according to the established precedents and the authority of the Constitution of India.

Judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)

• (^) The Supreme Court, with the majority opinion, had dismissed the appeal.
• (^) The Court stated that the provision of the death sentence is only an alternative to other punishments prescribed for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, 1860, and cannot be considered unreasonable and not in the public interest since the Parliament had already taken this into consideration while revising the Code of 1898, eventually replacing it with the CrPC, 1973.
• (^) The Court did not hold the sentence of death penalty as unconstitutional but established the doctrine of the ‘rarest of the rare’, wherein only cases falling under rarest of rare category could be punished with a death sentence, and that too only after the courts provide special reasons for such punishment.

• (^) Appellant Machhi Singh and Mohinder Singh were each armed with a rifle. Their three companions were armed with kirpans.
• (^) Appellant Machhi fired a shot on his wife who was lying on the cot.
• (^) At the same time appellant, Mohinder fired a shot on the son lying on a cot, and then Machhi fired shots on other sons.
• (^) At about 9 to 10 pm on the same day, nine 9 persons intruded in the house of one Kahar Singh at Sowaya Pai armed with deadly weapons. They killed 2 inmates of the household and injured the 3rd one by gunshot.
• (^) From there they straightway proceed to a place called Kho Kunjuka situated at a distance from the said village. They forcefully entered Bishan Singh’s house and killed him and smt. Paro and her child by firing rifle shot.
• (^) One Mohinder Singh was shot dead at about 1 am at the village of Kamrewala. He was the brother of Amar Singh. The FIR was filed within half an hour by the victim’s wife Piaro Bai.
• (^) At about 3:30 am on the night of 12 and 13 five miscreants armed with deadly weapons affected forcibly entry into the house of one Ujagar Singh at the village Dandi Khur. They attacked inmates and killed his sister and four near relatives.

• (^) In this case in the state of Punjab, a series of family disputes intensified into violence.
• (^) A series of attacks took place in and around 5 villages in Punjab on the night between the 12th and 13th of August 1977.
• (^) In which total no of 17 peoples were killed and 3 people got injured including men, women, and children were related to Amar Singh and his sister Piaro Bai.
• (^) Machhi Singh was a man who has organized and executed the attack was in a feud with another man Amar Singh and his sister Piaro Bai.
• (^) About the murder of 17 people Machhi Singh and his 11 companions, close relatives, and associates were prosecuted in five session courts. Machhi Singh was a common Accused in every case.
• (^) The composition of his co-accused fluctuated no.-wise from trial to trial, after the series of trials the accused found guilty were convicted under appropriate provisions.
• (^) Machhi Singh and 3 others were awarded the death sentence and 9 accused were awarded imprisonment for life. 14 appeals were made by the convicts before Punjab has Haryana high court. Having lost their appeals and the death sentences have been confirmed, the appellants have come in an appeal by the way of special leave.

ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE

PETITIONER:-

• (^) Since it was night, electricity had not yet reached the concerned village at that time. and the light shed by the lantern cannot be considered to be sufficient enough to enable the eyewitnesses to identify the convicts.
• (^) They also argued that in each crime the appreciation of evidence regarding identification has to be made in the context of the fact situation that a light lantern was hanging in the courtyard where the victims were sleeping on the cots.
• (^) They argued that the evidence of the two eye witnesses namely, P.W. Amar Singh and P.W. Mohindo was not such as could be implicitly relied upon, and the rest of the evidence was neither sufficient, nor satisfactory enough, to bring home the guilt to appellant Machhi Singh.

ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE

RESPONDENT:-

• (^) As electricity has yet not reached the village the people of the village are habituated to see things in the light of the lantern. Their eyesight gets mended and becomes habituated to the circumstances. Their power of seeing is therefore not diminished by the circumstances that the incident is witnessed in the light of the lantern and not in electric light. Therefore insufficiency of light cannot make the commission of the crime by the accused doubtful.
• (^) Identification did not pose any difficulty as the accused were know to the witnesses.
• (^) In fact, there was a conflict in a long-standing family.
• (^) As culprits had not covered their faces to hide their identities it was not difficult to identify the culprits from their facial features, etc.

• (^) In so far rest of the appellants concerning the sentence of imprisonment for life and other sentence imposed on each of them must be confirmed.
• (^) The death penalty was imposed on the appellants named hereafter viz Machhi Singh, Kashmir Singh, Jagir Singh has been confirmed the sentence shall be executed following the law.
• (^) Death sentence has been separately imposed on the appellant Machhi Singh in all the matters. By the very nature of aspect, the sentence will be deemed to have been executed in all the cases if it is executed in one.

CRITERIA

• (^) The criteria are analyzed below:
• (^) 1. Manner of committing murder - when the murder is committed in an extremely cruel, ridiculous, diabolical, rebellious or reprehensible manner so as to arouse intense and extreme outrage of the community;
• (^) For example, a. When the victim's house is set on fire with the intention of baking her alive. b. When the victim is tortured for inhuman acts leading to her death. C. When the victim's body is mercilessly mutilated or cut into pieces.
• (^) 2. Motive for murder - When a murder is intended to be a total depravity and cruelty; For example, a. A hired killer is killing just for the reward of money. b. A cold-blooded murder involving a thoughtful design to gain control of property or some other selfish gain.
• 3. Socially heinous nature of crime - When a person belonging to a backward class is murdered. Cases of burning of the bride, popularly known as dowry death, are also included in this.
• (^) 4. The magnitude of the crime - when the proportion of crime is very high, for example, in cases of multiple murders.
• (^) 5. 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