RAREST OF RARE DOCTRINE: POLITY

RAREST OF RARE DOCTRINE: POLITY

NEWS: Life sentence for RG Kar convict as Kolkata court denies it is ‘rarest of the rare’ crime

WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?

The Kolkata Sessions Court's sentencing of Sanjoy Roy to life imprisonment for rape and murder underscores the application of the "rarest of rare" doctrine, established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). This doctrine requires courts to weigh the severity of a crime against the possibility of the convict's reformation before imposing a death penalty.

1. Background of the Case

  • Incident Overview:
  • Sanjoy Roy was convicted of the rape and murder of a doctor at RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata.
  • The Sessions Court sentenced him to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.

2. The ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine

  • Definition and Origin:
  • Established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the doctrine restricts the death penalty to the most heinous crimes.
  • The doctrine ensures adherence to Article 21 of the Constitution, which permits deprivation of life only if due process is followed (Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., 1973).
  • Key Factors Considered:
  • Aggravating Circumstances:
      • Extreme brutality or premeditated nature of the crime.
      • Victims include vulnerable individuals or public servants on duty.
  • Mitigating Circumstances:
      • Youth, old age, or mental/emotional disturbance of the convict.
      • Potential for reformation and rehabilitation.

3. Evolution of the Doctrine

  • Focus on Reform:
  • The state must present evidence showing that the convict cannot be reformed (Santosh Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, 2009).
  • Reformative justice is given priority unless the crime’s severity outweighs it.
  • Precedents Demonstrating Variability:

                    Age of the Accused:

      • In Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012), the court deemed youth a mitigating factor.
      • Conversely, in Shankar Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013), inconsistencies arose regarding age consideration.

Nature of Crime:

      • Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) emphasized societal conscience and the extent of crime severity.

4. Procedural Safeguards in Sentencing

  • Separate Sentencing Hearings:
  • A post-conviction hearing ensures fair evaluation of mitigating and aggravating factors.
  • The Supreme Court criticized same-day conviction and sentencing for lacking adequate representation (Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra, 2020).
  • Objective Evidence:
  • Clear and demonstrable proof of the convict's irredeemability is mandatory.
  • Courts are required to document reasons explicitly when imposing the death penalty.

5. Scope of the Rarest of Rare Test

  • Dimensions of the Test:
    1. Manner of Crime: Heinous methods or acts of depravity.
    2. Motive of Crime:  Anti-social, abhorrent, or extreme motives.
    3. Impact on Society: Crimes that shock societal conscience.
  • Judicial Presumption:
  • Life imprisonment is the default sentence for murder, with the death penalty reserved for extraordinary cases.

6. Challenges in Application

  • Inconsistency in Judicial Interpretations: Variability in evaluating age, reform potential, and societal impact leads to uneven application.
  • Limited Procedural Time: Sentencing on the same day as conviction may compromise the convict’s right to a fair hearing.

7. Alternatives to Death Penalty

  • Focus on reformative justice and rehabilitation for most crimes.
  • Advocacy for abolishing capital punishment in favor of life imprisonment with stricter conditions.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/kolkata/rg-kar-rape-murder-sanjoy-roy-life-sentence-9788884/