IPC 2022 Rarest of the rare Doctrine

RAREST OF THE RARE DOCTRINE

Death Penalty has always been a controversial Topic among the law community. Some
consider it Justice to the victims of heinous crimes; some consider it inhuman to take
another human beings’ life (whether criminal or non-criminal).

Offences Punishable with Death Penalty

Death penalty under IPC
- Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy to commit any offence punishable with
death, if committed in consequence thereof for which no punishment is
prescribed.
- Section 121 – Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting ageing of war
against the Government of India.
- Section 132 – Abetment of Mutiny actually committed.
- Section 194 – Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent
person suffers death.
- Section 302 –Murder which may be punished with death or life
imprisonment.
- Section 305 – Abetment of suicide of a minor,insane, or intoxicated person.
- Section 307 – Attempt to murder by a person under sentence of
imprisonment for life, if hurt is caused.
- Section 364 A – Kidnapping for ransom, etc.
- Section 396 – Dacoity accompanied with murder.
- Section 149 r/w 34 – Joint liability extending the principle of constructive
liability on all the persons who conjointly commit an offence punishable
with death, if committed in furtherance of common intention or common
object of all.
- Section 109 -Abetment of offences punishable with death.
Death penalty under laws other than IPC
- The Indian Airforce Act, 1950
- The Army Act, 1950
- The Navy Act, 1950
- The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987
- The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989

YG LAW 1
IPC 2022 Rarest of the rare Doctrine

FAMOUS DEATH PENALTY CASES IN INDIA

Nathuram Godse v Crown (Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi) (1949)

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.

Amruta v. State of Maharashtra (1983)

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.

Kehar Singh v Delhi Administration (1988)

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.

Santosh Kumar Singh v UT of Delhi (Mattoo Murder case) (2010)

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” and the death penalty which was initially given to him
was reduced to life imprisonment.

Shabnam v. Union of India (Amroha Murder Case) (2015)

First case in India after independence where a woman has been given death penalty
in which the culprits murdered seven members of Shabnam's family by sedating six
of them and then hacking them to death; the seventh victim, a ten-month-old baby
was murdered unsedated.

YG LAW 2
IPC 2022 Rarest of the rare Doctrine

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DEATH PENALTY

Jagmohan Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (1972)

The constitutionality of death penalty was challenged for the first time, it
was argued that capital punishment for murder violates articles 21 and 14 of
the Constitution.

Issue of Violation of Article 14

The counsel for the appellant contended that when there is discretionary
power conferred on the judiciary to impose life imprisonment or death
sentence, imposing death sentence is violative of article 14 of the
Constitution if in two similar cases one gets death sentence and the other
life imprisonment.

On this point the Supreme Court held that there is no merit in the
argument. If the Law has given to the judiciary wide discretionary power in
the matter of sentence to be passed, it will be difficult to expect that there
would be uniform application of Law and perfectly consistent decisions
because facts and circumstances of one case cannot be the same as that
of the other and thus these will remain sufficient ground for scale of
values of judges and their attitude and perception to play a role.

Issue of Violation of Article 21

The Court also held “deprivation of life is constitutionally permissible
provided it is done according to procedure established by Law. The death
sentence per se is not unreasonable or not against public interest.

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P (1979)

Justice Krishna Iyer held that capital punishment would not be justified unless it was
shown that the criminal was dangerous to the society. Court also observed that such
extraordinary grounds alone constitutionally qualify as special reasons as to leave no
option to the court but to execute the offender if the state and society are to survive
and progress. The court was in favour of abolition of death penalty in general and
retention of it only for

1. White Collar Crimes.

2. Anti-Social Offences
3. Extermination a person who is a menace to the society (a hardened murderer)

YG LAW 3
IPC 2022 Rarest of the rare Doctrine

Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)

The supreme court was called upon to decide the constitutional validity of
death sentence and held that only in exceptional and rarest of rare cases,
death sentence can be imposed. The court laid down that only in certain
and rarest of rare cases, death sentence can be imposed. The Supreme
Court by 4:1 majority held that death sentence under section 302 IPC
does not violate article 21. The International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights to which India has become a party in the year 1979, does
not abolish imposition of death penalty wholly. But it must be reasonably
imposed and not arbitrary; it should be imposed in most serious crimes.

In this case the Court held that “Judges should not be blood thirsty. A real
and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to
taking a life through laws instrumentality. That ought not to be done save
in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably
foreclosed.”

The court laid down certain principle which were explained in a subsequent
decision of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983). In the Machhi Singh’s
case, the court set out specific standards for surveying when a case could fall
under the ambit of rarest of rare. These standards include:

o The manner of the commission of the offence

o The motive for the commission of the offence
o The societal impact of the offence
o Facts and circumstances leading to the offence
o The vulnerability of the members of the society at the hands of the
offender
o Magnitude of crime
o The personality of the victim of the offence

YG LAW 4
IPC 2022 Rarest of the rare Doctrine

MEANING AND SCOPE OF ‘RAREST OF RARE’ DOCTRINE.

• There is no statutory definition of rarest of rare. In a criminal trial, the nature
and gravity of the crime are taken into consideration for determining a suitable
punishment.
• The application of ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine depends on two factors.
o Aggravating circumstances – Makes the offence more severe or worse.
o Mitigating circumstances – Makes the offence less serious.
• Under ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine a judge is supposed to balance the Aggravating
circumstances and mitigating circumstances to decide whether it is a case
where this doctrine can be applied and death penalty be given.

COMPULSORY DEATH PENALTY

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

DELAY IN DEATH SENTENCE

In T.V. Vatheeswaram v State of T.N. (1983), it was held that delay exceeding
two years in the execution of death sentence entitles a convict to get it
commuted to life imprisonment. But it was overruled in Sher Singh v State of
Punjab (1983), that no such limit could be fixed for the execution of death
sentence without regard to the facts of every case.

Be part of YG Law Community and make studying law easier.

YouTube: YG Law; Instagram: YGLaw.in

Facebook: YGLaw.in; Twitter: YGLaw_in

Click here to view my courses

YG LAW 5