The doctrine of rarest of rare cases.

 

The doctrine of rarest of rare cases.

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is killed by the state as a punishment for a crime. The sentence that someone be punished in such a manner is referred to as a death sentence, whereas the act of carrying out the sentence is known as an execution. Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes or capital offences, and they commonly include extreme offenses such as murder, mass murder, terrorism, treason, espionage, offenses against the State, such as attempting to overthrow government, piracy, drug trafficking, war crimes, crimes against humanityand genocide, but may include a wide range of offences depending on a country. Etymologically, the term capital (lit. "of the head", derived via the Latin capitalis from caput, "head") in this context alluded to execution by beheading.^[1]

 Evolution of Rarest of Rare Doctrine. In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India[3], the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty can be awarded only in special cases. It constitutes an exceptional punishment which will be imposed only with special reason and must be properly conferred by the High Court.

The Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court of India in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) (2 SCC 684) made it very clear that Capital punishment in India can be given only in rarest of rare cases. ... The Supreme Court of India ruled that the death penalty should be imposed only in "the rarest of rare cases."

“Time and again, this Court has categorically held that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception and even when the crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the category of rarest of rare.” The Supreme Court, reiterating the principle that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception, has observed that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.

three-judge bench comprising of Justice AK Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer observed thus while commuting death penalty awarded to Sukhlal, who was found guilty of murdering a lady in whose house he was working as a gardener. The bench, in its order passed on November 20, 2018, held that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt by leading satisfactory evidence by the prosecution and thus confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial court and the high court. Also Read - SC Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Mandatory Death Penalty Under SC/ST Act [Read Petition] Holding that the high court erred in confirming the death penalty, the bench invoking Bachan Singh judgment, observed: “Time and again, this Court has categorically held that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception and even when the crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the category of rarest of rare.” It then said that the decision to impose the highest punishment of death sentence in the instant case does not fulfil the test of “rarest of rare case where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed”. Commuting the death sentence to that of life imprisonment with a cap of 18 years, the bench further added: Bachan Singh (supra) in no unequivocal terms sets out that death penalty shall be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases where life imprisonment shall be wholly inadequate or futile owing to the nature of the crime and the circumstances relating to the criminal. Whether the person is capable of reformation and rehabilitation should also be taken into consideration while imposing death penalty.