Research Results Based on the Query


ACT
ARG
SCJ
HCJ

Query: The rarest of rare cases of death penalty.

Revised Query: The rarest of rare cases warrant the death penalty.



Likely Arguments


Opposing Counsel's Potential Arguments

1. Violation of Article 21 - Right to Life: The opposing counsel may argue that the imposition of the death penalty violates the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They may contend that the death penalty is a cruel and inhuman punishment that goes against the principles of human dignity and the right to life.

2. Arbitrariness and Lack of Consistency: The opposing counsel may raise concerns about the arbitrary and inconsistent application of the death penalty in India. They may argue that the criteria for determining the rarest of rare cases are subjective and open to interpretation, leading to disparities in sentencing across different cases.

3. Possibility of Error and Irreversibility: Another argument that the opposing counsel may present is the risk of wrongful convictions and the irreversibility of the death penalty. They may highlight cases where individuals have been wrongly sentenced to death and later exonerated, emphasizing the need to avoid irreversible punishments.

4. International Human Rights Standards: The opposing counsel may invoke international human rights standards and argue that the death penalty is increasingly being abolished worldwide due to its violation of human rights principles. They may emphasize India's commitment to upholding international human rights norms and advocate for the abolition of the death penalty.

Counterarguments and Legal Defenses

1. Constitutional Validity of Death Penalty:
- Counterargument: The death penalty has been upheld as constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court of India in various judgments, including Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. The court has recognized the rarest of rare doctrine as a legitimate basis for imposing the death penalty in exceptional cases.
- Legal Defense: Cite Article 21 of the Constitution, which allows for the deprivation of life in accordance with the procedure established by law. Highlight the Supreme Court's role in interpreting and applying the constitutional provisions to uphold the legality of the death penalty.

2. Judicial Safeguards and Due Process:
- Counterargument: The legal framework in India provides for stringent judicial safeguards and due process protections in death penalty cases to minimize the risk of error and ensure fair trials.
- Legal Defense: Refer to Section 354(3) of the CrPC, which mandates the recording of special reasons for awarding the death penalty, ensuring transparency and accountability in sentencing. Emphasize the role of appellate courts in reviewing death penalty verdicts to rectify any miscarriage of justice.

3. Deterrent Effect and Public Interest:
- Counterargument: The death penalty serves as a deterrent against heinous crimes and upholds the public interest in maintaining law and order. It sends a strong message that certain crimes will not be tolerated in society.
- Legal Defense: Argue that the rarest of rare cases warrant the death penalty to protect society from grave threats and to uphold the principles of justice. Cite the Supreme Court's recognition of the societal interest in imposing the death penalty in exceptional cases.

Optimal Defense Strategy

Based on the potential arguments and counterarguments outlined above, the optimal defense strategy to defend your client in a death penalty case would involve:

1. Emphasizing Legal Justifications: Focus on the legal justifications for imposing the death penalty in the rarest of rare cases, citing relevant provisions of the IPC, CrPC, and the Constitution of India. Highlight the Supreme Court's guidelines and precedents that support the imposition of the death penalty in exceptional circumstances.

2. Addressing Human Rights Concerns: Acknowledge the human rights concerns raised by the opposing counsel but emphasize the balance between individual rights and societal interests in cases of extreme gravity. Argue that the death penalty is a proportionate response to the most heinous crimes that threaten the fabric of society.

3. Highlighting Judicial Safeguards: Stress the robust judicial safeguards and due process protections in death penalty cases to mitigate the risk of error and ensure fair trials. Demonstrate how the legal framework in India provides for thorough scrutiny and review of death penalty verdicts to uphold the principles of justice.

By adopting a comprehensive defense strategy that combines legal arguments, human rights considerations, and judicial safeguards, you can effectively counter the opposing counsel's arguments and advocate for the imposition of the death penalty in the rarest of rare cases.


Relevant Supreme Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024

Result 1
Supreme Court of India
Sunder @ Sundararajan vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police
Honourable Judges Jagdish Singh Khehar, P. Sathasivam
Date of Judgment: 05 Feb 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 14
   
   
   

19. In Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 684, this Court expanded the "rarest of rare" formulation beyond the aggravating factors listed in Bachan Singh to cases where the "collective conscience" of a community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial powers centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, such a penalty can be inflicted. But the Bench in this case underlined that full weightage must be accorded to the mitigating circumstances in a case and a just balance had to be struck between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 20. "The rarest of the rare case" comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful co-existence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of "the rarest of the rare case". There must be no reason to believe that the accused cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society. The accused may be a menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious co-existence. The manner in which the crime is committed must be such that it may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society. Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-the-moment provocation and indulges himself in a deliberately planned crime and meticulously executes it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment for such a ghastly crime. The death sentence may be warranted where the victims are innocent children and helpless women. Thus, in case the crime is committed in a most cruel and inhuman manner which is an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner, where his act affects the entire moral fiber of the society, e.g. crime committed for power or political ambition or indulging in organized criminal activities, death sentence should be awarded. (See: C. Muniappan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2010 SC 3718; Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh v. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490; Surendra Koli v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 80; Mohd. Mannan (supra); and Sudam v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC 125). 21. Thus, it is evident that for awarding the death sentence, there must be existence of aggravating circumstances and the consequential absence of mitigating circumstances.

Result 2
Supreme Court of India
Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr vs State Of Karnataka
Honourable Judges B.S. Chauhan, S.A. Bobde
Date of Judgment: 28 Nov 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
   
   
   

Therefore, we do not find any force in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that one of the said witnesses had been disbelieved by the Trial Court and another by the High Court and thus, none of them could be relied upon. The courts below opined that even if evidence of one of them is eschewed, deposition of another is enough to lend support to the prosecution case. 18. However, the facts of the case did not warrant death penalty. The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the offender are also required to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the crime for the reason that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. The penalty of death sentence may be warranted only in a case where the court comes to the conclusion that imposition of life imprisonment is totally inadequate having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime. The balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so, the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised. The condition of providing special reasons for awarding death penalty is not to be construed linguistically but it is to satisfy the basic features of a reasoning supporting and making award of death penalty unquestionable. The circumstances and the manner of committing the crime should be such that it pricks the judicial conscience of the court to the extent that the only and inevitable conclusion should be awarding of death penalty. (Vide: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898; Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957; Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2002 SC 1661; State of Maharashtra v. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul, AIR 2011 SC 2689; and Neel Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 5 SCC 766). 19. In Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 12 SCC 56, this court held as under: “20. ‘The rarest of the rare case’ comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of ‘the rarest of the rare case’. There must be no reason to believe that the accused cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society. The accused may be a menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence. The manner in which the crime is committed must be such that it may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society.

Result 3
Supreme Court of India
Digambar vs The State Of Maharashtra
Honourable Judges B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath
Date of Judgment: 28 Apr 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
   
   
   

19. In that view of the matter, we find that no interference would be warranted with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that the accused appellants are guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 20. However, the only question that arises is, as to whether the present case could be considered as one to be ‘rarest of the rare’ so as to award death penalty. 21. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master and others1, the accused had killed six persons and wiped of almost the whole family on the ground of saving the honour of the family. In the said case, though this Court found that the same would fall within the ‘rarest of the rare’ 1 (2010) 12 SCC 324 case, it commuted the capital sentence to the one to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- each. 22. This Court in the case of Gandi Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka2, wherein the accused had committed murder of his daughter, who was in the advanced stage of pregnancy, though upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC, but commuted the sentence from capital punishment to imprisonment for life. 23. There are certain other precedents of this Court as to which cases would fall under the category of ‘rarest of rare’ case. 24. In the case of Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra3, the appellant was a Senior Scientific Assistant. He wiped out his brother’s entire family. This Court found that this was done by him on account of frustration as his brother was not partitioning the alleged joint property. Though this Court held that the crime was heinous and brutal, but it could not be considered to be 2 (2017) 5 SCC 415 3 (2002) 2 SCC 35 ‘rarest of rare’ case. This Court held that, it is difficult to hold that appellant is a menace to the society and that there is no reason to believe that he cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. 25. In the case of Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab4, this Court observed thus: “25. It is well-settled law that awarding of life sentence is a rule and death is an exception. The application of the “rarest of rare” cases principle is dependent upon and differs from case to case. However, the principles laid down and reiterated in various decisions of this Court show that in a deliberately planned crime, executed meticulously in a diabolic manner, exhibiting inhuman conduct in a ghastly manner, touching the conscience of everyone and thereby disturbing the moral fibre of the society, would call for imposition of the capital punishment in order to ensure that it acts as a deterrent. While we are convinced that the case of the prosecution based on the evidence adduced confirms the commission of offence by the appellant, however, we are of the considered opinion that still the case does not fall within the four corners of the “rarest of rare” cases.

Result 4
Supreme Court of India
Deepak Rai vs State Of Bihar
Honourable Judges M. Y. Eqbal, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, H. L. Dattu
Date of Judgment: 19 Sep 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 16
   
   
   

46. There being no impropriety by the Courts below in compliance with the procedure prescribed under law for sentencing the appellants, only the question of adequacy and correctness of the special reasons assigned for awarding sentence of death requires to be considered by us. In our considered opinion, as noticed above, it is only upon examination of the facts and circumstances of the case could the adequacy of the special reasons recorded by the Courts below be determined by us. Therefore, we would now consider the second issue to determine whether at all the case falls in the category of rarest of the rare offences. Issue two: Does this case fall into the category of rarest of the rare cases? 47. We are mindful of the principles laid down by this Court in Bachan Singh v. State, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and affirmed in Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 to be observed on the sentencing policy in determining the rarest of the rare crimes. In Bachan Singh case (supra) this Court has held as follows: "While considering the question of sentence to be imposed for the offence of murder u/s 302 of the Penal Code, the court must have regard to every relevant circumstance relating to the crime as well as the criminal. If the court finds, but not otherwise, that the offence is of an exceptionally depraved and heinous character and constitutes, on account of its design and the manner of its execution, a source of grave danger to the society at large, the court may impose the death sentence." 48. In Machhi Singh case (supra), this Court has awarded death sentence to the accused who had methodically in a preplanned manner murdered seventeen persons of a village including men, women and children. Therein, this Court has besides outlining the five broad categories of rarest of rare cases held that in order to apply the guidelines of Bachan Singh case (supra) the following questions ought to be answered: “39. “(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? (b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?” This Court has held that if the answer to the above is in affirmative, then death sentence is warranted. This Court has further observed that the motivation of the perpetrator, the vulnerability of the victim, the enormity of the crime, the execution thereof are few of the many factors which normally weigh in the mind of the Court while awarding death sentence in a case terming it as the “rarest of the rare” cases. While applying the test of rarest of the rare case, the Court has to look into variety of factors like society's abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of crimes which shake the collective conscience of the society.

Result 5
Supreme Court of India
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State Of Maharashtra
Honourable Judges Cyriac Joseph, S.B. Sinha
Date of Judgment: 13 May 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 24
   
   
   

In Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab [2006 (11) SCALE 309] the accused had raped a minor girl. The victim died a painful death because of bleeding from her private parts. The court, however, noted that the accused might not have had the intention of murdering the victim, but her death was only the unfortunate inevitable consequence of the crime, hence it did not fall within the rarest of the rare cases. In Bishnu Prasad Sinha and Anr. v. State of Assam [2007 (2) SCALE 42], this Court commuted the death penalty of the accused on the ground that the prosecution case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In State of Maharashtra v. Prakash Sakha Vasave and others, [ 2009 (1) SCALE 713] the accused had brutally attacked with axes the husband of their sister, who was having an illicit relationship with another woman. The trial court had found two of the accused guilty and sentenced them to death. In appeal the High Court acquitted the accused because of lack of evidence. This Court in appeal set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court but noticed that the case before it did not fall in the rarest of rare and deserved only a life imprisonment. 3(D) Differing opinion in other cases While dealing with a matter as to whether death penalty should be awarded or not, although the court ordinarily would look to the precedents, but, this becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, in the context of the cases discussed above. There is no uniformity of precedents, to say the least. In most cases, the death penalty has been affirmed or refused to be affirmed by us, without laying down any legal principle. In Aloke Nath Dutt and ors. v. State of West Bengal, [2006 (13) SCALE 467] this Court after examining various judgments over the past two decades in which the issues of rarest of rare fell for consideration, admitted the failure on the part of this Court to evolve a uniform sentencing policy in capital punishment cases and conclude as to what amounted to `rarest of rare'. Disparity in sentencing has also been noted in Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (Swamy Shraddananda - I) [(2007) 12 SCC 288]. In the aforementioned backdrop, we may notice a recent three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra (supra). Aftab Alam, J., writing the judgment for the Three-Judge Bench held: "33. The truth of the matter is that the question of death penalty is not free from the subjective element and the confirmation of death sentence or its commutation by this Court depends a good deal on the personal predilection of the judges constituting the bench. 34. The inability of the Criminal Justice System to deal with all major crimes equally effectively and the want of uniformity in the sentencing process by the Court lead to a marked imbalance in the end results.

Result 6
Supreme Court of India
Mohan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu
Honourable Judges M.K. Mukherjee
Date of Judgment: 12 May 1998
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
   
   
   

Death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. (iv) A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised. In Machhi Singh and others vs. State of Punjab - (1983) 3 Supreme Court Cases 470, three learned judges of this Court came to hold that the observation of the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh's case (supra) that the death sentence should b e given in rarest of rare cases has to be examined in the facts of the individual case in the context of relevant guidelines. Their Lordships indicated that when the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community it would be a rarest of rare cases. Their Lordships also further laid down when the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness, for example, murder by hired assassin for money or reward; or cold-blooded murder for gains of a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust; or murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland it would attract the principle of rarest of rare case. Lordships also in the aforesaid case had indicated that when the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community, then it would also satisfy the test of rarest of rare case. In Suresh vs. State of U.P. - (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 569, the Court did not feel it safe to impose extreme penalty of death as the conviction was being based on the deposition of a single child witness as of 5 y ears' old.

Result 7
Supreme Court of India
Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Of M.P
Honourable Judges M.Y. Eqbal, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, H.L. Dattu
Date of Judgment: 03 Jul 2014
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
   
   
   

This is how the concept of the rarest of rare cases has emerged in law. Viewed from that angle, both the legislative provisions and judicial pronouncements are at ad idem in law. The death penalty should be imposed in the rarest of rare cases and that too for special reasons to be recorded. To put it simply, a death sentence is not a rule but an exception. Even the exception must satisfy the prerequisites contemplated under Section 354(3) CrPC in light of the dictum of the Court in Bachan Singh(supra). 33. The Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Bachan Singh (supra) has been summarised in para 38 in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1998) 1 SCC 149, and the following guidelines have been stated while considering the possibility of awarding sentence of death: (Machhi Singh case(supra), SCC p. 489) “(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. (ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the ‘offender’ also requires to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the ‘crime’. (iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. … death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. (iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.” (emphasis supplied) [pic] 34. The judgment in Bachan Sing(supra), did not only state the above guidelines in some elaboration, but also specified the mitigating circumstances which could be considered by the Court while determining such serious issues and they are as follows: (SCC p. 750, para 206) “206. … ‘Mitigating circumstances.—In the exercise of its discretion in the above cases, the court shall take into account the following circumstances: (1) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. (2) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death. (3) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society. (4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated.

Result 8
Supreme Court of India
Haresh Mohandas Rajput vs State Of Maharashtra
Honourable Judges B.S. Chauhan, P. Sathasivam
Date of Judgment: 20 Sep 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
   
   
   

13. In Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957, this Court expanded the "rarest of rare" formulation beyond the aggravating factors listed in Bachan Singh to cases where the "collective conscience" of a community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial powers centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, such a penalty can be inflicted. But the Bench in this case underlined that full weightage must be accorded to the mitigating circumstances in a case and a just balance had to be struck between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 14. "Rarest of the rare case" comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful co-existence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of "rarest of the rare case". There must be no reason to believe that the accused cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society. The accused may be a menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious co-existence. The manner in which the crime is committed must be such that it may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society. Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-the-moment provocation and indulges himself in a deliberately planned crime and meticulously executes it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment for such a ghastly crime. The death sentence may be warranted where the victims are innocent children and helpless women. Thus, in case the crime is committed in a most cruel and inhuman manner which is an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner, where his act affects the entire moral fiber of the society, e.g. crime committed for power or political ambition or indulge in organized criminal activities, death sentence should be awarded. (See: C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2010 SC 3718; Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh v. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490; Surendra Koli v. State of UP & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 80; Mohd. Mannan (supra); and Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC 125). 15. Thus, it is evident that for awarding the death sentence, there must be existence of aggravating circumstances and the consequential absence of mitigating circumstances. As to whether death sentence should be awarded, would depend upon the factual scenario of the case in hand. 16. The instant appeals are required to be decided in the light of the aforesaid settled propositions of law.

Result 9
Supreme Court of India
Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral vs State Of Maharashtra
Honourable Judges Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Markandey Katju
Date of Judgment: 13 Sep 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 23
   
   
   

98. In our opinion a distinction has to be drawn between ordinary murders and murders which are gruesome, ghastly or horrendous. While life sentence should be given in the former, the latter belongs to the category of rarest of rare cases, and hence death sentence should be given. 99. This distinction has been clarified by a recent judgment of my learned brother Hon'ble C. K. Prasad, J. in Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan vs. State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 317 (vide paras 23 and 24), wherein it has been observed: "23. It is trite that death sentence can be inflicted only in a case which comes within the category of the rarest of rare cases but there is no hard-and-fast rule and parameter to decide this vexed issue. This Court had the occasion to consider the cases which can be termed as the rarest of rare cases and although certain comprehensive guidelines have been laid to adjudge this issue but no hard-and-fast formula of universal application has been laid down in this regard. Crimes are committed in so different and distinct circumstances that it is impossible to lay down comprehensive guidelines to decide this issue. Nevertheless it is widely accepted that in deciding this question the number of persons killed is not decisive. 24. Further, the crime being brutal and heinous itself does not turn the scale towards the death sentence. When the crime is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community and when collective conscience of the community is petrified, one has to lean towards the death sentence. But this is not the end. If these factors are present the court has to see as to whether the accused is a menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence. The court has to further enquire and believe that the accused condemned cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and shall continue with the criminal acts. In this way a balance sheet is to be prepared while considering the imposition of penalty of death of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and a just balance is to be struck. So long the death sentence is provided in the statute and when collective conscience of the community is petrified, it is expected that the holders of judicial power do not stammer dehors their personal opinion and inflict death penalty. These are the broad guidelines which this Court had laid down for imposition of the death penalty". We fully agree with the above view as it has clarified the meaning of the expression `rarest of the rare cases'. To take a hypothetical case, supposing `A' murders `B' over a land dispute, this may be a case of ordinary murder deserving life sentence. However, if in addition to murdering `B', `A' goes to the house of `B' and wipes out his entire family, then this will come in the category of rarest of the rare cases' deserving death sentence.

Result 10
Supreme Court of India
Chhannu Lal Verma vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
Honourable Judges Kurian Joseph, Deepak Gupta, Hemant Gupta
Date of Judgment: 28 Nov 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
   
   
   

61. The background analysis leading to the conclusion that the case belongs to the rarest of rare category must conform to highest standards of judicial rigor and thoroughness as the norm under analysis is an exceptionally narrow exception. A conclusion as to the rarest of rare aspect with respect to a matter shall entail identification of aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating both to the crime and the criminal. It was in this context noted: (Bachan Singh case, SCC p. 738, para 161 “161. … The expression ‘special reasons’ in the context of this provision, obviously means ‘exceptional reasons’ founded on the exceptionally grave circumstances of the particular case relating to the crime as well as the criminal.”” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra5 this Court looked at the manner in which the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are to be weighed and how the rarest of rare test is to be applied while awarding death sentence and held thus: “52. Aggravating circumstances as pointed out above, of course, are not exhaustive so also the mitigating circumstances. In my considered view, the tests that we 5 (2013) 5 SCC 546 have to apply, while awarding death sentence are “crime test”, “criminal test” and the “R-R test” and not the “balancing test”. To award death sentence, the “crime test” has to be fully satisfied, that is, 100% and “criminal test” 0%, that is, no mitigating circumstance favouring the accused. If there is any circumstance favouring the accused, like lack of intention to commit the crime, possibility of reformation, young age of the accused, not a menace to the society, no previous track record, etc. the “criminal test” may favour the accused to avoid the capital punishment. Even if both the tests are satisfied, that is, the aggravating circumstances to the fullest extent and no mitigating circumstances favouring the accused, still we have to apply finally the rarest of the rare case test (R-R test). R-R test depends upon the perception of the society that is “society- centric” and not “Judge-centric”, that is, whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types of crimes or not. While applying that test, the court has to look into variety of factors like society's abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of crimes like sexual assault and murder of intellectually challenged minor girls, suffering from physical disability, old and infirm women with those disabilities, etc. Examples are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

Result 11
Supreme Court of India
Mohinder Singh vs State Of Punjab
Honourable Judges P. Sathasivam, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
Date of Judgment: 28 Jan 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

It extinguishes life and thereby terminates the being, therefore, puts an end anything to do with the life. This is the big difference between two punishments. Thus, before imposing death penalty, it is imperative to consider the same. 18) “Rarest of rare” dictum, as discussed above, hints at this difference between death punishment and the alternative punishment of life imprisonment. The relevant question here would be to determine whether life imprisonment as a punishment would be pointless and completely devoid of any reason in the facts and circumstances of the case. As discussed above, life imprisonment can be said to be completely futile, only when the sentencing aim of reformation can be said to be unachievable. Therefore, for satisfying the second aspect to the “rarest of rare” doctrine, the court will have to provide clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme. 19) Treating the case on the touchstone of the guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh (supra), Machhi Singh (supra) and other decisions and balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances emerging from the evidence on record, we are not persuaded to accept that the case can appropriately be called the “rarest of rare” case warranting death penalty. We also find it difficult to hold that the appellant is such a dangerous person that sparing his life will endanger the community. We are also not satisfied that the circumstances of the crime are such that there is no other alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused. In our considered view, this case is the one in which humanist approach must be taken in the matter of awarding punishment. 20) It is well settled law that awarding of life sentence is a rule and death is an exception. The application of the “rarest of rare” case principle is dependant upon and differs from case to case. However, the principles laid down and reiterated in various decisions of this Court show that in a deliberately planned crime, executed meticulously in a diabolic manner, exhibiting inhuman conduct in a ghastly manner, touching the conscience of everyone and thereby disturbing the moral fiber of the society, would call for imposition of capital punishment in order to ensure that it acts as a deterrent. While we are convinced that the case of the prosecution based on the evidence adduced confirms the commission of offence by the appellant, however, we are of the considered opinion that still the case does not fall within the four corners of the “rarest of rare” case. 21) Life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years or even 30 years, rather it always means the whole natural life.

Result 12
Supreme Court of India
Kanhaiya Lal And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan
Honourable Judges Dipak Misra, K. S. Radhakrishnan
Date of Judgment: 22 Apr 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 12
   
   
   

It may do so in “rarest of rare cases” when its collective conscience is so shocked that it would expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards the desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty. After so stating, the three-Judge Bench culled out the propositions envisaged from Bachan Singh’s case which are as follows: - “(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. (ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the ‘offender’ also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the ‘crime’. (iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. (iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.” 33. In Haresh Mohandas Rajput v State of Maharshtra[18], the Bench referred to the principles in Bachan Singh (supra) and Machhi Singh (supra) and proceeded to state as follows:- “ “The rarest of the rare case” comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of “the rarest of the rare case”. There must be no reason to believe that the accused cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society. The accused may be a menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence. The manner in which the crime is committed must be such that it may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society. Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-the-moment provocation and indulges himself in a deliberately planned crime and meticulously executes it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment for such a ghastly crime. The death sentence may be warranted where the victims are innocent children and helpless women.

Result 13
Supreme Court of India
Mohd.Chaman vs State (N.C.T.Of Delhi)
Honourable Judges K.T.Thomas, D.P. Mohapatra
Date of Judgment: 11 Dec 2000
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 11
   
   
   

Discussing the question of application of the rarest of rare case rule to the facts of individual cases in the context of the relevant guidelines this Court observed (at p.487-88): "The reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse the humanistic approach reflected in 'death sentence -in-no- case' doctrine are not far to seek. In the first place, the very humanistic edifice is constructed on the foundation of 'reverence for life' principle. When a member of the community violates this very principle by killing another member, the society may not feel itself bound by the shackles of this doctrine. Secondly, it has to be realized that every member of the community is able to live with safety without his or her own life being endangered because of the protective arm of the community and on account of the rule of law enforced by it. The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of being brought to book operates as a deterrent of those who have no scruples in killing others if it suits their ends. Every member of the community owes a debt to the community for this protection. When ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by 'killing' a member of the community which protects the murderer himself from being killed, or when the community feels that for the sake of self-preservation the killer has to be killed, the community may well withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty. But the community will not do so in every case. It may do so 'in rarest of rare cases' when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty. The community may entertain such a sentiment when the crime is viewed from the platform of the motive for, or the manner of commission of the crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as for instance: I. Manner of Commission of murder 33. When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.

Result 14
Supreme Court of India
Gudda @ Dwarikendra vs State Of M.P
Honourable Judges M.Y. Eqbal, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, H.L. Dattu
Date of Judgment: 30 Sep 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

On this aspect of the matter, we are in consonance with the concurring observations of the Courts below. 25. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the prosecution case stands well supported and established by the evidence of PWs 5, 7, 9 and 18 coupled with the evidence of Doctors, the post-mortem report and medical evidence and does not leave any room for doubt as to the guilt of the appellant. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Courts below have not committed any error in convicting the appellant for the murder of the three persons under Section 302 of the IPC and the conviction of the appellant requires to be upheld. Issue two: Sentencing 26. We are mindful of the concept of and the caution to be exercised in classifying “rarest of the rare” cases in the light of the dictum of this Court in Bachan Singh case and Macchi Singh case which elucidated upon the few of many aggravating and the mitigating factors which must be judicially weighed and balanced while deciding upon the sentence proportional to the crime committed. In Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257 this Court has reflected upon the aforesaid decisions and collectively listed the principles laid down therein and the factors which must be borne in mind by the Court. 27. It is well settled that awarding of life sentence is the rule, death is an exception. The principles laid down earlier and restated in the various decisions of this Court can be broadly stated that a deliberately planned crime, executed meticulously in a diabolic manner, exhibiting inhuman conduct in a ghastly manner, touching the conscience of everyone and thereby disturbing the moral fiber of society would call for imposition of capital punishment in order to ensure that it acts as a deterrent. (See: Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498, Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 14 SCC 641, Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 12 SCC 56 and State of Maharashtra v. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul, (2011) 7 SCC 437). However, the application of “the rarest of the rare case” principle is dependent upon and differs from case to case. 28. This Court has consistently held that the number of deaths or the factum of whole family being wiped off cannot be the sole criteria for determining whether the case falls into the category of “rarest of rare”. (See: Aqeel Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2008) 16 SCC 372, Ram Pal v. State of U.P., (2003) 7 SCC 141) 29. Further, we cannot loose sight of the fact that brutality also cannot be the only criterion for determining whether a case falls under the “rarest of rare” categories. In Panchhi v. State of U.P, this Court has reiterated the said principle and thereby justified the commutation of sentence from death to life imprisonment. 30. We would now revert to the facts of the instant case.

Result 15
Supreme Court of India
Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Of M.P
Honourable Judges M.Y. Eqbal, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, H.L. Dattu
Date of Judgment: 03 Jul 2014
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
   
   
   

Whether the case is one of the rarest of the rare cases is a question which has to be determined on the facts of each case. Suffice it to mention that the choice of the death sentence has to be made only in the rarest of the rare cases and that where culpability of the accused has assumed depravity or where the accused is found to be an ardent criminal and menace to the society and; where the crime is committed in an organised manner and is gruesome, cold-blooded, heinous and atrocious; where innocent and unarmed persons are attacked and murdered without any provocation, the case would present special reason for purposes of sub-section (3) of Section 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code.” In Rony alias Ronald James Alwaris (supra) this Court noted the law laid-down by this Court in Allauddin Mian & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (1989) 3 SCC 5, that unless the nature of the crime and circumstances of the offender reveal that criminal is a menace to the society and the sentence of life imprisonment would be altogether inadequate, the Court should ordinarily pass a lesser punishment and not punishment of death which should be reserved for exceptional case only. Considering the cumulative effect of all the factors, like the offences committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, the young age of the accused, the possibility of reform and rehabilitation, etc. the Court may convert the sentence into life imprisonment. 26. In State of Maharashtra vs. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul, 2011 (7) SCC 437, this Court made the following observation: “30. The principles governing the sentencing policy in our criminal jurisprudence have more or less been consistent, right from the pronouncement of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,(2010) 8 SCC 775. Awarding punishment is certainly an onerous function in the dispensation of criminal justice. The court is expected to keep in mind the facts and circumstances of a case, the principles of law governing award of sentence, the legislative intent of special or general statute raised in [pic]the case and the impact of awarding punishment. These are the nuances which need to be examined by the court with discernment and in depth. 31. The legislative intent behind enacting Section 354(3) CrPC clearly demonstrates the concern of the legislature for taking away a human life and imposing death penalty upon the accused. Concern for the dignity of the human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s instrumentalities and that ought not to be done, save in the rarest of rare cases, unless the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. In exercise of its discretion, the court would also take into consideration the mitigating circumstances and their resultant effects. 32. The language of Section 354(3) demonstrates the legislative concern and the conditions which need to be satisfied prior to imposition of death penalty.

Result 16
Supreme Court of India
Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar vs State Of Haryana
Honourable Judges Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, B.S. Chauhan
Date of Judgment: 07 May 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
   
   
   

The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of “the rarest of the rare case”. There must be no reason to believe that the accused cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society. The accused may be a menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence. The manner in which the crime is committed must be such that it may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society. Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-the-moment provocation and indulges himself in a deliberately planned crime and [pic]meticulously executes it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment for such a ghastly crime. The death sentence may be warranted where the victims are innocent children and helpless women. Thus, in case the crime is committed in a most cruel and inhuman manner which is an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner, where his act affects the entire moral fibre of the society e.g. crime committed for power or political ambition or indulging in organised criminal activities, death sentence should be awarded.” 24. Thus, it is evident that for awarding the death sentence, there must be existence of aggravating circumstances and the consequential absence of mitigating circumstances. As to whether death sentence should be awarded, would depend upon the factual scenario of the case in hand. The instant case is required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. There is no reason to disbelieve the above evidence and circumstances nor there is any reason to doubt the commission of offence by the appellant and the recovery of incriminating material on his disclosure statement. The incriminating circumstances taken into consideration by the courts below can reasonably be inferred. However, so far as the sentence part is concerned, in view of the law referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the case does not fall within the rarest of rare cases. However, considering the nature of offence, age and relationship of the victim with the appellant and gravity of injuries caused to her, appellant cannot be awarded a lenient punishment. 25. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Swami Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 3040, considering the facts of the case, set aside the sentence of death penalty and awarded the life imprisonment but further explained that in order to serve the ends of justice, the appellant therein would not be released from prison till the end of his life.

Result 17
Supreme Court of India
Mohinder Singh vs State Of Punjab
Honourable Judges P. Sathasivam, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
Date of Judgment: 28 Jan 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
   
   
   

It may be that the manner in which a murder was perpetrated may be a ground but not the sole criterion for judging whether the case is one of the “rarest of rare cases” as indicated in Bachan Singh’s case.” 12) The Constitution Bench of this Court, by a majority, upheld the constitutional validity of death sentence in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684. This Court took particular care to say that death sentence shall not normally be awarded for the offence of murder and that it must be confined to the “rarest of rare” cases when the alternative option is foreclosed. In other words, the Constitution Bench did not find death sentence valid in all cases except in the aforesaid cases wherein the lesser sentence would be wholly inadequate. 13) In Machhi Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470, a three-Judge Bench of this Court while following the ratio in Bachan Singh (supra) laid down certain guidelines amongst which the following is relevant in the present case: “A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.” 14) We have extracted the above reasons of the two courts only to point out that, in a way, every murder is brutal, and the difference between the one from the other may be on account of mitigating or aggravating features surrounding the murder. 15) In the instant case, as already mentioned, the accused had earlier committed rape on his deceased daughter-Geetu Verma in 1999 and in that case, his deceased wife - Veena Verma was a witness wherein the accused was convicted under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and sentenced to RI for 12 years. It is also subsequently taken on record that his deceased wife sent the accused out of his house and as a consequence, he had to live separately in a rented house with no means of livelihood. It was thirst for retaliation, which became the motivating factor in this case. In no words are we suggesting that the motive of the accused was correct rather we feel it does not come within the category of “rarest of rare” case to award death penalty. 16) The doctrine of “rarest of rare” confines two aspects and when both the aspects are satisfied only then the death penalty can be imposed. Firstly, the case must clearly fall within the ambit of “rarest of rare” and secondly, when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. Bachan Singh (supra) suggested selection of death punishment as the penalty of last resort when, alternative punishment of life imprisonment will be futile and serves no purpose. 17) In life sentence, there is a possibility of achieving deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution in different degrees. But the same does not hold true for the death penalty.

Result 18
Supreme Court of India
Chhannu Lal Verma vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
Honourable Judges Kurian Joseph, Deepak Gupta, Hemant Gupta
Date of Judgment: 28 Nov 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

Some of the information relating to crime can be culled out from the phase prior to sentencing hearing. This information would include aspects relating to the nature, motive and impact of crime, culpability of convict, etc. Quality of evidence adduced is also a relevant factor. For instance, extent of reliance on circumstantial evidence or child witness plays an important role in the sentencing analysis. But what is sorely lacking, in most capital sentencing cases, is information relating to characteristics and socio-economic background of the offender. This issue was also raised in the 48th Report of the Law Commission. 57. Circumstances which may not have been pertinent in conviction can also play an important role in the selection of sentence. Objective analysis of the probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated can be one such illustration. In this context, Guideline 4 in the list of mitigating circumstances as borne out by Bachan Singh is relevant. The Court held: (SCC p. 750, para 206) “206. (4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy Conditions ( 3) and (4) above.” In fine, Bachan Singh mandated identification of aggravating and mitigating circumstance relating to crime and the convict to be collected in the sentencing hearing. 58. The rarest of rare dictum breathes life in “special reasons” under Section 354(3). In this context, Bachan Singh laid down a fundamental threshold in the following terms: (SCC p. 751, para 209) “209. … A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.” (emphasis supplied) An analytical reading of this formulation would reveal it to be an authoritative negative precept. The “rarest of rare cases” is an exceptionally narrow opening provided in the domain of this negative precept. This opening is also qualified by another condition in the form of “when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed”. 59. Thus, in essence, the rarest of rare dictum imposes a wide-ranging embargo on award of death punishment, which can only be revoked if the facts of the case successfully satisfy double qualification enumerated below: 1. that the case belongs to the rarest of rare category, 2. and the alternative option of life imprisonment will just not suffice in the facts of the case. 60. The rarest of rare dictum serves as a guideline in enforcing Section 354(3) and entrenches the policy that life imprisonment is the rule and death punishment is an exception. It is a settled law of interpretation that exceptions are to be construed narrowly.

Result 19
Supreme Court of India
Atbir vs Govt. Of N.C.T Of Delhi
Honourable Judges B.S. Chauhan, P. Sathasivam
Date of Judgment: 09 Aug 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 10
   
   
   

If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death. (3) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society. (4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (3) and (4) above. (5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence. (6) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person. (7) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct." 25) A three-Judge Bench in Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 after analyzing the Constitution Bench decision in Bachan Singh (supra), held the following propositions for determination of rarest of rare cases:- "Death Sentence 32. The reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse the humanistic approach reflected in `death sentence-in-no-case' doctrine are not far to seek. In the first place, the very humanistic edifice is constructed on the foundation of `reverence for life' principle. When a member of the community violates this very principle by killing another member, the society may not feel itself bound by the shackles of this doctrine. Secondly, it has to be realised that every member of the community is able to live with safety without his or her own life being endangered because of the protective arm of the community and on account of the rule of law enforced by it. The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of being brought to book operates as a deterrent for those who have no scruples in killing others if it suits their ends. Every member of the community owes a debt to the community for this protection. When ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by `killing' a member of the community which protects the murderer himself from being killed, or when the community feels that for the sake of self- preservation the killer has to be killed, the community may well withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty. But the community will not do so in every case. It may do so `in rarest of rare cases' when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty.

Result 20
Supreme Court of India
State Of Tamil Nadu Through ... vs Nalini And 25 Others
Honourable Judges Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
Date of Judgment: 11 May 1999
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 28
   
   
   

To determine the rarest of the rare case it was suggested that the answers to the following questions would be helpful : (a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of the imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? (b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender. The leading cases on the subject suggest that discretion of the Court in awarding punishment when conviction is for an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life is controlled by Section 354(3) Cr.P.C. so if the Court proposes to impose capital punishment it must record special reasons for so doing. What constitutes special reasons cannot be stated with any precision and that has to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. If a case falls in the category of rarest of the rare case it would justify the requirement of special reasons. But again in deciding whether a case falls within rarest of the rare case, the Court has to consider both aggravating as well as the mitigating circumstances in each case in the light of the abovenoted principles. In numerous cases these principles are being applied. There is no need to multiply the cases here. It is now time to address to the facts of the case. On applying the well-settled principles laid down by this Court, Brother Thomas,J. felt that the confirmation of death sentence awarded by the Designated Court to A-2, A-3 and A-18 is justified whereas brother Wadhwa,J. on the same principles confirmed the death sentence awarded by the Designated Court to A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-18. So far as the confirmation of death sentence of A-2. A-3 and A-18 is concerned both the learned brethern concur and I record my respectful agreement with their conclusions. The difference of opinion between them is with regard to confirmation of death sentence of A-1. It is now my view which determines the result of this issue. I may express my feelings that ill behoves a person to order the death of another. He who gives life alone has the authority to take life. In dispensing justice a Judge is not only discharging a sovereign function but he is also doing a divine function.

Result 21
Supreme Court of India
Haru Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal
Honourable Judges Deepak Verma, V.S. Sirpurkar
Date of Judgment: 27 Aug 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
   
   
   

11. However, Shri Mata Prasad Singh urged that the appellant/accused had acted only on the spur of the moment and that merely because there were two murders committed by him that by itself does not become a rarest of rare case. Learned counsel for the defence further urged that the appellant/accused had two young children and there was nobody to support his family after him and that also is one of the considerations. 12. The test of rarest of rare case was laid down by this Court for the first time in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1980 (2) SCC 684. Thereafter the same was reiterated in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 (3) SCC 470. The test laid down adopted the following five considerations:- "(1) When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. (2) When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g. murder by hired assassin for money or reward; or cold- blooded murder for gains of a persons vis-a vis whom the murderer is in dominating position or in a position of trust; or murder is committed in the course of betrayal of the motherland. (3) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc. is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath; or in cases of `bride burning' or `dowry deaths' or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infactuation. (4) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance, when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community or locality are committed. (5) When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis-`-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community." Thereafter, however, there are several cases in which this Court considered the question of the rarest of rare case, each time weighing the factual situation obtained in the matter. There can be no dispute that there cannot be a straightjacket formula depending on the numbers of murders committed or the manner in which the murder was committed or the fact that the appellant/accused was already undergoing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. We must hasten to add in this case that the appeal of the appellant/accused was already pending in the Calcutta High court against his previous conviction under Section 382, IPC. The findings of the rarest of rare case would have to be judged in the light of the circumstances brought about and proved by the prosecution.

Result 22
Supreme Court of India
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State Of Maharashtra
Honourable Judges Cyriac Joseph, S.B. Sinha
Date of Judgment: 13 May 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 14
   
   
   

But the same does not hold true for the death penalty. It is unique in its absolute rejection of the potential of convict to rehabilitate and reform. It extinguishes life and thereby terminates the being, therefore puts an end anything to do with the life. This is the big difference between two punishments. Before imposing death penalty, therefore, it is imperative to consider the same. Rarest of rare dictum, as discussed above, hints at this difference between death punishment and the alternative punishment of life imprisonment. The relevant question here would be to determine whether life imprisonment as a punishment will be pointless and completely devoid of reason in the facts and circumstances of the case? As discussed above, life imprisonment can be said to be completely futile, only when the sentencing aim of reformation can be said to be unachievable. Therefore, for satisfying the second exception to the rarest of rare doctrine, the court will have to provide clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme. This analysis can only be done with rigor when the court focuses on the circumstances relating to the criminal, along with other circumstances. This is not an easy conclusion to be deciphered, but Bachan Singh (supra) sets the bar very high by introduction of Rarest of rare doctrine. In Panchhi v. State of U.P., [(1998) 7 SCC 177], this Court also elucidates on "when the alternative option is foreclosed" benchmark in the following terms: 16. When the Constitution Bench of this Court, by a majority, upheld the constitutional validity of death sentence in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab this Court took particular care to say that death sentence shall not normally be awarded for the offence of murder and that it must be confined to the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is foreclosed. In other words, the Constitution Bench did not find death sentence valid in all cases except in the aforesaid freaks wherein the lesser sentence would be, by any account, wholly inadequate. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab a three-Judge Bench of this Court while following the ratio in Bachan Singh case laid down certain guidelines among which the following is relevant in the present case: (SCC p. 489, para 38) "(iv) A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised." In Bachan Singh (supra), it was stated: "206. Dr Chitale has suggested these mitigating factors: "Mitigating circumstances.--In the exercise of its discretion in the above cases, the court shall take into account the following circumstances: (1) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. (2) The age of the accused.

Result 23
Supreme Court of India
Amar Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P
Honourable Judges Dipak Misra, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
Date of Judgment: 01 Jul 2014
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
   
   
   

In my considered view, the tests that we have to apply, while awarding death sentence are “crime test”, “criminal test” and the “R-R test” and not the “balancing test”. To award death sentence, the “crime test” has to be fully satisfied, that is, 100% and “criminal test” 0%, that is, no mitigating circumstance favouring the accused. If there is any circumstance favouring the accused, like lack of intention to commit the crime, possibility of reformation, young age of the accused, not a menace to the society, no previous track record, etc. the “criminal test” may favour the accused to avoid the capital punishment. Even if both the tests are satisfied, that is, the aggravating circumstances to the fullest extent and no mitigating circumstances favouring the accused, still we have to apply finally the rarest of the rare case test (R-R test). R-R test depends upon the perception of the society that is “society- centric” and not “Judge-centric”, that is, whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types of crimes or not. While applying that test, the court has to look into variety of factors like society’s abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of crimes like sexual assault and murder of intellectually challenged minor girls, suffering from physical disability, old and infirm women with those disabilities, etc. Examples are only illustrative and not exhaustive. The courts award death sentence since situation demands so, due to constitutional compulsion, reflected by the will of the people and not the will of the Judges.” 24. On the question of sentence of death the principle in nutshell has been stated in Haresh Mohandas Rajput vs. State Of Maharashtra, 2011 (12) SCC 56, which reads as under: “The rarest of the rare case” comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of “the rarest of the rare case”. There must be no reason to believe that the accused cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society. The accused may be a menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence. The manner in which the crime is committed must be such that it may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society. Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-the-moment provocation and indulges himself in a deliberately planned crime and [pic]meticulously executes it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment for such a ghastly crime. The death sentence may be warranted where the victims are innocent children and helpless women.

Result 24
Supreme Court of India
Shankar vs State Of T.N
Honourable Judges G.N. Ray
Date of Judgment: 04 Apr 1994
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 45
   
   
   

In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab13 this 13 (1983) 3 SCC 470: 1983 SCC (Cri) 681 14 (1988) 3 SCC 609 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 71 1 Court again indicated some principles as to what constitute 'the rarest of rare cases' which warrant the imposition of death sentence. The High Court has carefully examined these principles and given reasons why in this case, the death sentence alone should be awarded." 47. In Mangal Singh v. State of U.P.15 the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of one defenceless woman who was all alone in the house by inflicting as many as seven injuries on the face and neck with a gandasa. It was noted that the number of injuries showed the brutal nature of assault and in the absence of mitigating circumstances death sentence was awarded and the same was upheld by this Court. 48. At this stage it is also necessary to note some further observations in Bachan Singh case12 where the Constitution Bench observed thus: (SCC p. 739, para 163) "The present legislative policy discernible from Section 235(2) read with Section 354(3) is that in fixing the degree of punishment or making the choice of sentence for various offences, including one under Section 302, Penal Code, the court should not confine its consideration 'principally' or merely to the circumstances connected with the particular crime, but also give due consideration to the circumstances of the criminal." The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the view taken by this Court in Jagmohan Singh case' 1 i.e. "If the court finds, but not otherwise, that the offence is of an exceptionally depraved and heinous character and constitutes, on account of its design and the manner of its execution, a source of grave danger to the society at large, the court may impose the death sentence." 49. In a recent decision of this Court in Allaucdin Mian v. State Of Bihar16 this view has been reiterated thus: (SCC pp. 22, 23, para 12) "However, in order that the sentences may be properly graded to fit the degree of gravity of each case, it is necessary that the maximum sentence prescribed by law should, as observed in Bachan Singh case12 be reserved for the rarest of rare cases which are of an exceptional nature.

Result 25
Supreme Court of India
Shankar Kisanrao Khade vs State Of Maharashtra
Honourable Judges K.S. Radhakrishnan, Madan B. Lokur
Date of Judgment: 25 Apr 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 26
   
   
   

It was observed: “But in the case in hand on examining the evidence of the three witnesses it appears to us that the accused-appellant has committed the murder of the deceased girl not intentionally and with any premeditation. On the other hand the accused-appellant found a young girl alone in a lonely place, picked her up for committing rape; while committing rape and in the process by way of gagging the girl has died. The medical evidence also indicates that the death is on account of asphyxia. In the circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the case in hand cannot be held to be one of the rarest of rare cases justifying the punishment of death.” 13. In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 death penalty was not awarded to the accused since he had been acquitted by the High Court, even though the case was said to be “perilously near” to falling within the category of rarest of rare cases. The test of whether the lesser option was “unquestionably foreclosed” was adopted by this Court, which held: “We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and restore the conviction passed by the trial court. Regarding sentence we would have concurred with the Sessions Court's view that the extreme penalty of death can be chosen for such a crime, but as the accused was once acquitted by the High Court we refrain from imposing that extreme penalty in spite of the fact that this case is perilously near the region of “rarest of the rare cases” envisaged by the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. However, the lesser option is not unquestionably foreclosed and so we alter the sentence, in regard to the offence under Section 302 IPC, to imprisonment for life.” 14. In Mohd. Chaman v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 2 SCC 28 the accused, a 30 year old man, had raped and killed a one and a half year old child. Despite concluding that the crime was serious and heinous and that the accused had a dirty and perverted mind, this Court converted the death penalty to one of imprisonment for life since he was not such a dangerous person who would endanger the community and because it was not a case where there was no alternative but to impose the death penalty. It was also held that a humanist approach should be taken in the matter of awarding punishment. It was held: “Coming to the case in hand, the crime committed is undoubtedly serious and heinous and the conduct of the appellant is reprehensible. It reveals a dirty and perverted mind of a human being who has no control over his carnal desires. Then the question is: Whether the case can be classified as of a “rarest of rare” category justifying the severest punishment of death.

Result 26
Supreme Court of India
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State Of Maharashtra
Honourable Judges Cyriac Joseph, S.B. Sinha
Date of Judgment: 13 May 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 12
   
   
   

In this context, guideline no. 4 in the list of Mitigating Circumstances as borne out by Bachan Singh (supra) is relevant. The court held: (4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions 3 and 4 above. In fine, Bachan Singh (supra) mandated identification of aggravating and mitigating circumstance relating to crime and the convict to be collected in the sentencing hearing. 2(B) Nature of Content of Rarest of rare Dictum Rarest of rare dictum breathes life in "special reasons" under section 354(3). In this context, Bachan Singh (supra) laid down a fundamental threshold in the following terms: "A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed." An analytical reading of this formulation would reveal it to be an authoritative negative precept. "Rarest of rare cases" is an exceptionally narrow opening provided in the domain of this negative precept. This opening is also qualified by another condition in form of "when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed". Thus, in essence, rarest of rare dictum imposes a wide-ranging embargo on award of death punishment, which can only be revoked if the facts of the case successfully satisfy double qualification enumerated below: 1. that the case belongs to the rarest of rare category 2. and the alternative option of life imprisonment will just not suffice in the facts of the case Rarest of rare dictum serves as a guideline in enforcing section 354(3) and entrenches the policy that life imprisonment is the rule and death punishment is an exception. It is a settled law of interpretation that exceptions are to be construed narrowly. That being the case, the rarest of rare dictum places an extraordinary burden on the court, in case it selects death punishment as the favoured penalty, to carry out an objective assessment of facts to satisfy the exceptions ingrained in the rarest of rare dictum. The background analysis leading to the conclusion that the case belongs to rarest of rare category must conform to highest standards of judicial rigor and thoroughness as the norm under analysis is an exceptionally narrow exception. A conclusion as to the rarest of rare aspect with respect to a matter shall entail identification of aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating both to the crime and the criminal.

Result 27
Supreme Court of India
Swamy Sharaddanandea @ Murali Monahar ... vs State Of Karnataka
Honourable Judges Markandey Katju
Date of Judgment: 18 May 2007
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
   
   
   

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 454 of 2006 PETITIONER: Swamy Sharaddanandea @ Murali Monahar Mishra RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/05/2007 BENCH: Markandey Katju JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. I have perused the judgment of my learned brother Hon'ble S.B. Sinha, J. in this case. The facts of the case have been narrated in the judgment of my learned brother and hence I am not referring to them except where necessary. 2. While I entirely agree with my learned brother that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and other provisions of IPC imposed by the Trial Court and High Court deserves to be upheld, I express my inability with my learned brother that the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court should be reduced to life sentence. In my opinion this case falls within the category of rarest of rare cases and hence the appellant deserves death sentence. 3. In Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal 2006(13) SCALE 467 a Division Bench of this Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 in which it is laid down that death penalty should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases. In Machi Singh vs. State of Punjab 1983 (3) SCC 470 (vide paragraphs 32 to 37) a 3 Judge Bench of this Court gave the following illustrations of murders which fall within the category of 'rarest of rate cases' and hence deserved death penalty. (i) When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. (ii) When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g. murder by hired assassin for money or reward; or cold- blooded murder for gains of a person vis-`-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust; or murder is committed in the course of betrayal of the motherland. (iii) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community, etc. is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath; or in cases of "bride-burning" or "dowry deaths" or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again to marry another woman on account of infatuation. (iv) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed. (v) When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis-`-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community.

Result 28
Supreme Court of India
State Of Rajasthan vs Jamil Khan
Honourable Judges Kurian Joseph, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Date of Judgment: 27 Sep 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
   
   
   

For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed. (5) When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community. If upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid propositions and taking into account the answers to the questions posed by way of the test for the rarest of rare cases, the circumstances of the case are such that death sentence is warranted, the court would proceed to do so". (Emphasis supplied) 13. According to Lord Denning, the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens. To him, deterrence, reformation or prevention are not the determinative factors. His statement to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment made in 1950 reads: “Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing; and, in order to maintain respect for the law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else... The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. As held by this Court in Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral vs. State of Maharashtra[8], a distinction has to be drawn between ordinary murders and murders which are gruesome, ghastly or horrendous. In such cases, “93. …While life sentence should be given in the former, the latter belongs to the category of the rarest of rare cases, and hence death sentence should be given. …” 15. Any murder would cause a shock to the society but all murders may not cause revulsion in society. Certain murders shock the collective conscience of the Court and community. Heinous rape of minors followed by murder is one such instance of a crime which shocks and repulses the collective conscience of the community and the Court. Such crimes arouse extreme revulsion in society. While culling out the rarest of rare cases on the basis of aggravating and mitigating factors, we are of the view that such crimes, which shock the collective conscience of the society by creating extreme revulsion in the minds of the people, are to be treated as the rarest of rare category. 16. Although the crime in the present case is gruesome and renders a loathsome shock to the community, we are bound by the ratio in Bachan Singh’s case (supra) which requires the Court to consider the mitigating factors qua the criminal.

Result 29
Supreme Court of India
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State Of Maharashtra
Honourable Judges Cyriac Joseph, S.B. Sinha
Date of Judgment: 13 May 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 31
   
   
   

In a capital sentencing system if this happens with some frequency there is a lurking conclusion as regards the capital sentencing system becoming constitutionally arbitrary." We have to be, thus, mindful that the true import of Rarest of rare doctrine speaks of an extraordinary and exceptional case. When the court is faced with a capital sentencing case, a comparative analysis of the case before it with other purportedly similar cases would be in the fitness of the scheme of the Constitution. Comparison will presuppose an identification of a pool of equivalently circumstanced capital defendants. The gravity, nature and motive relating to crime will play a role play a role in this analysis. Next step would be to deal with the subjectivity involved in capital cases. The imprecision of the identification of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be minimized. It is to be noted that the mandate of equality clause applies to the sentencing process rather than the outcome. The comparative review must be undertaken not to channel the sentencing discretion available to the courts but to bring in consistency in identification of various relevant circumstances. The aggravating and mitigating circumstances have to be separately identified under a rigorous measure. Bachan Singh (supra), when mandates principled precedent based sentencing, compels careful scrutiny of mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances and then factoring in a process by which aggravating and mitigating circumstances appearing from the pool of comparable cases can be compared. The weight which is accorded by the court to particular aggravating and mitigating circumstances may vary from case to case in the name of individualized sentencing, but at the same time reasons for apportionment of weights shall be forthcoming. Such a comparison may point out excessiveness as also will help repel arbitrariness objections in future. A sentencing hearing, comparative review of cases and similarly aggravating and mitigating circumstances analysis can only be given a go by if the sentencing court opts for a life imprisonment. 3. THE "RAREST" OF "RARE CASES" Bachan Singh (supra) laid down its fundamental threshold in the following terms: "A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the Rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed." To translate the principle in sentencing terms, firstly, it may be necessary to establish general pool of rare capital cases. Once this general pool is established, a smaller pool of rare cases may have to established to compare and arrive at a finding of Rarest of rare case. 4. ARTICLE 21 Right to life, in its barest of connotation would imply right to mere survival. In this form, right to life is the most fundamental of all rights.

Result 30
Supreme Court of India
Sunder @ Sundararajan vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police
Honourable Judges Jagdish Singh Khehar, P. Sathasivam
Date of Judgment: 05 Feb 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 15
   
   
   

The sentencing policy being a significant and inseparable facet of criminal jurisprudence, has been inviting the attention of the Courts for providing certainty and greater clarity to it. 57. Capital punishment has been a subject matter of great social and judicial discussion and catechism. From whatever point of view it is examined, one undisputable statement of law follows that it is neither possible nor prudent to state any universal formula which would be applicable to all the cases of criminology where capital punishment has been prescribed. It shall always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. This Court has stated various legal principles which would be precepts on exercise of judicial discretion in cases where the issue is whether the capital punishment should or should not be awarded. 58. The law requires the Court to record special reasons for awarding such sentence. The Court, therefore, has to consider matters like nature of the offence, how and under what circumstances it was committed, the extent of brutality with which the offence was committed, the motive for the offence, any provocative or aggravating circumstances at the time of commission of the crime, the possibility of the convict being reformed or rehabilitated, adequacy of the sentence of life imprisonment and other attendant circumstances. These factors cannot be similar or identical in any two given cases. 59. Thus, it is imperative for the Court to examine each case on its own facts, in light of the enunciated principles. It is only upon application of these principles to the facts of a given case that the Court can arrive at a final conclusion whether the case in hand is one of the 'rarest of rare' cases and imposition of death penalty alone shall serve the ends of justice. Further, the Court would also keep in mind that if such a punishment alone would serve the purpose of the judgment, in its being sufficiently punitive and purposefully preventive. xxx xxx xxx xxx 72. The above judgments provide us with the dicta of the Court relating to imposition of death penalty. Merely because a crime is heinous per se may not be a sufficient reason for the imposition of death penalty without reference to the other factors and attendant circumstances. 73. Most of the heinous crimes under the IPC are punishable by death penalty or life imprisonment. That by itself does not suggest that in all such offences, penalty of death alone should be awarded. We must notice, even at the cost of repetition, that in such cases awarding of life imprisonment would be a rule, while 'death' would be the exception. The term 'rarest of rare' case which is the consistent determinative rule declared by this Court, itself suggests that it has to be an exceptional case. 74. The life of a particular individual cannot be taken away except according to the procedure established by law and that is the constitutional mandate.

Relevant High Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024

Result 1
Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Kala Ram @ Kala Singh
Honourable Judges Gurvinder Singh Gill
Date of Judgment: 14 December 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
   
   
   

Whether a case falls within the rarest of the rare case or not, has to be examined with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case and the court has to take note of the aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances and conclude whether there was something uncommon about the crime which renders the sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for death sentence. However, more than 12 years have elapsed since the act was committed, we are of the opinion that the life sentence awarded by the High Court need not be enhanced in view of the factual position discussed in the earlier paras." 21. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 5 SCC 317 in the case of Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Vs. State of Bihar, have discussed the broad guidelines for imposition of death penalty. Their Lordships have also held as under :- 10 of 108 Murder Reference No.2 of 2018 & CRA-D-764-DB-2018 11 "23. It is trite that death sentence can be inflicted only in a case which comes within the category of the rarest of rare cases but there is no hard-and-fast rule and parameter to decide this vexed issue. This Court had the occasion to consider the cases which can be termed as the rarest of rare cases and although certain comprehensive guidelines have been laid to adjudge this issue but no hard-and-fast formula of universal application has been laid down in this regard. Crimes are committed in so different and distinct circumstances that it is impossible to lay down comprehensive guidelines to decide this issue. Nevertheless it is widely accepted that in deciding this question the number of persons killed is not decisive. 24*. Further, crime being brutal and heinous itself does not turn the scale towards the death sentence. When the crime is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community and when collective conscience of the community is petrified, one has to lean towards the death sentence. But this is not the end. If these factors are present the court has to see as to whether the accused is a menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence. The court has to further enquire and believe that the accused condemned cannot bereformed or rehabilitated and shall continue with the criminal acts.

Result 2
Rajasthan High Court
Ram Prasad Sahu S/O Shri Durga Lal Sahu ... vs State Of Rajasthan
Honourable Judges Sabina, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Date of Judgment: 12 September 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
   
   
   

The condition of providing special reasons for awarding death penalty is not to be construed linguistically but it is to satisfy the basic features of a reasoning supporting and making award of death penalty unquestionable. The circumstances and the manner of committing the crime should be such that it pricks the judicial conscience of the court to the extent that the only and inevitable conclusion should be awarding of death penalty." (See also:Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898]; Machchi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957]; and Devender Pal Singh v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. AIR [2002 SC 1661]). A similar view has been taken by this Court in Haresh Mohandas Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra [2011 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 790 : (2011) 12 SCC 56 observing as under: (11 of 15) [CRLAD-219/2019] "The rarest of the rare case" comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of "the rarest of the rare case". There must be no reason to believe that the accused cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society. The accused may be a menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence. The manner in which the crime is committed must be such that it may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society. Where an accused does not act on any spur-of- the-moment provocation and indulges himself in a deliberately planned crime and [pic]meticulously executes it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment for such a ghastly crime. The death sentence may be warranted where the victims are innocent children and helpless women. Thus, in case the crime is committed in a most cruel and inhuman manner which is an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner, where his act affects the entire moral fibre of the society e.g. crime committed for power or political ambition or indulging in organised criminal activities, death sentence should be awarded.

Result 3
Bombay High Court
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap vs The State Of Maharashtra
Honourable Judges Ranjit V. More, Bharati H.Dangre
Date of Judgment: 20 December 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 86
   
   
   

As such, while deciding the present case, we will have to keep ourself aloof from our personal opinion as regarding the desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty. What is required by us, is to decide as to whether in the perception of the society at large, the present case is a case which can be considered as rarest of rare case warranting death sentence. 96. At this stage, it will be appropriate to refer to the quotation of Lord Denning which has been quoted by the Apex Court in the case of Depak Rai vs. State of Bihar (supra), which is as under: ........ the punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrongdoing; and, in order to maintain respect for the law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else....The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrongdoer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not. 66 In light of the aforesaid dictum following from the catena of judgments, where the higher Courts had an opportunity to ponder over the imposition of death penalty, it had applied the crime test and the criminal test and held that "motivation of the perpetrator, vulnerability of the victim, enormity of the crime, the execution thereof are factors which Tilak 147 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc normally weigh with the court in awarding the death sentence terming it as the rarest of the rare cases. In some cases, capital punishments was awarded on the basis of crime test even if the criminal test was not satisfied and in some cases, capital punishment was awarded both on crime test and criminal test, whereas in other category of cases, the capital punishment was awarded both on crime test, criminal test and rarest of rare test. (R-R test). In some cases, capital punishment was awarded by applying the balancing test i.e. by balancing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. 67 The imposition of death penalty has been a subject matter of severe criticism mainly of it being violative of human rights and its irreversibility.

Result 4
Patna High Court
State Of Bihar vs Sheikh Samsul And Sheikh Gayas
Honourable Judges Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Rekha Kumari
Date of Judgment: 5 October 2007
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 24
   
   
   

80. It is relevant here to state that the Court below has awarded death sentence to Sheikh Samsul and Sheikh Gayas primarily on the ground that although they were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in an earlier case, still they had committed the offence of murder. This, according to the Court below, renders the case in hand to be the rarest of the rare case calling for the death sentence. 81. Mr. Singh, submits that this itself shall not bring out the case amongst rarest of the rare case. In support of the submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishan v. State of Haryana and our attention has been drawn to the following passage from para-10 of the judgment which reads as follows: 10. - Coming now to the sentence we find that the principal reason which weighed with the Courts below to hold that the extreme penalty of death was called, was that earlier the appellant had committed a murder for which he was serving the sentence of life imprisonment at the material time and that he committed another murder while he was released on parole. Mr. Prasad as also Mr. Thakur, appearing on behalf of the informant submit that this is one of the rarest of the rare case where the death penalty is called for. Page 0594 82. We had the occasion to consider this question in the case of The State of Bihar v. Sanjeet Rai and Anr. 2006 (4) PLJR 479, in which in para-59, it has been held as follows : 59. - True it is that the crime has been committed in a heinous and brutal manner but there is nothing on record to show that the two condemned shall be menace to the society threatening its peaceful existence and continuous threat to the society, if come out of incarceration. There is no reason to believe that they cannot be reformed and they are likely to continue criminal activities. Having given my most anxious consideration and viewed from this angle, the case in hand does not come within the category of rarest of the rare case cases, calling for extreme penalty of death.

Result 5
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh @ Rakesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Honourable Judges H.P.Singh
Date of Judgment: 10 August 2017
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 36
   
   
   

In other words, death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. (iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so, the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised. 19. In Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjasecb, (1983) 2 SCC 684, this Court expanded the "rarest of rare" formulation beyond the aggravating factors listed in Bachan Singh to cases where the "collective conscience" of a community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial powers centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, such a penalty can be inflicted. But the Bench in this case underlined that full weightage must be accorded to the mitigating circumstances in a case and a just balance had to be struck between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 20. "The rarest of the rare case" comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful co-existence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of "the rarest of the rare case". There must be no reason to believe that the accused cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society. The accused may be a menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious co-existence. The manner in which the crime is committed must be such that it may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society. Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-the-moment provocation and indulges himself in a deliberately planned crime and meticulously executes it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment for such a ghastly crime.

Result 6
Chattisgarh High Court
In Reference Of Chhattisgarh vs Lochan Shrivas 14 Cra/888/2016 Lochan ...
Honourable Judges Pritinker Diwaker, Ram Prasanna Sharma
Date of Judgment: 17 November 2017
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 31
   
   
   

56. After considering the issue regarding imposition of death sentence at length, the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul reported in AIR 2011 SC 2689 has held as under: "Awarding of death sentence amounts to taking away the life of an individual, which is the most valuable right available, whether viewed from the constitutional point of view or from the human rights point of view. The condition of providing special reasons for awarding death penalty is not to be construed linguistically but it is to satisfy the basic features of a reasoning supporting and making award of death penalty unquestionable. The circumstances and the manner of committing the crime should be such that it pricks the judicial conscience of the court to the extent that the only and inevitable conclusion should be awarding of death penalty." (See also: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898; Machchi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 957; and Devender Pal Singh v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. AIR 2002 SC 1661)." 57. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 12 SCC 56 observing as under: "The rarest of the rare case" comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of "the rarest of the rare case". There must be no reason to believe that the accused cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society. The accused may be a menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence. The manner in which the crime is committed must be such that it may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society. Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-the- moment provocation and indulges himself in a deliberately planned crime and [pic] meticulously executes it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment for such a ghastly crime. The death sentence may be warranted where the victims are innocent children and helpless women.

Result 7
Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Haresh Mohandas Rajput
Honourable Judges S. Radhakrishnan, R.S. Dalvi
Date of Judgment: 11 January 2008
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 18
   
   
   

38. Mohd. Chaman v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi 2001 Cri.L.J.725 SC, wherein in paragraph Nos.19 and 24, the Honble Supreme Court has held that; 19. Discussing the question of application of the rarest of rare case rule to the facts of individual cases in the context of the relevant guidelines this Court observed (at P.487-88) (of SCC): The reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse the humanistic approach reflected in death sentence in no case doctrine are not far to seek. In the first place the very humanistic edifice is constructed on the foundation of reverence for life principle. When a member of the community violates this very principle by killing another member, the society may not feel itself bound by the shackles of this doctrine. Secondly, it has to be realized that every member of the community is able to live with safety without his or her own life being endangered because of the protective arm of the community and on account of the rule of law enforced by it. The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of being brought to book operates as a deterrent of those who have no scruples in killing others if it suits their ends. Every member of the community owes a debt to the community for this protection. When ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by killing a member of the community which protects the murderer himself from being killed or when the community feels that for the sake of self-preservation the killer has to be killed, the community may well withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty. But the community will not do so in every case. It do so in rarest of rare cases when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise or retaining death penalty.... 24. Coming to the case in hand, the crime committed is undoubtedly serious and heinous and the conduct of the appellant is reprehensible. It reveals a dirty and perverted mind of a human being who has no control over his carnal desires. Then the question is whether the case can be classified as of a rarest of rare category justifying the severest punishment of death.

Result 8
Rajasthan High Court
Ram Prasad Sahu S/O Shri Durga Lal Sahu ... vs State Of Rajasthan
Honourable Judges Sabina, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Date of Judgment: 12 September 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
   
   
   

Therefore, in our considered view, present case does not qualify the test of being "rarest of rare cases" and therefore, we commute the death sentence to that of life imprisonment. As regards appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan questioning the non-imposition of fine while awarding death penalty by the trial court, since we have decided to convert the death penalty to life imprisonment, we deem it appropriate to also impose fine on the accusedrespondents." Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar Versus The State of Haryana 2012 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 39 Supreme Court of India, wherein, it was held as under:- "In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to take a view different from the view taken by the courts below and this leads us to the further question regarding the sentence as to whether it could be a rarest of rare case where imposition of death penalty is warranted. The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the offender also (10 of 15) [CRLAD-219/2019] require to be taken into consideration alongwith the circumstances of the crime for the reason that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. The penalty of death sentence may be warranted only in a case where the court comes to the conclusion that imposition of life imprisonment is totally inadequate having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime. The balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before option is exercised. After considering the issue at length, this court in State of Maharashtra v. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul, AIR 2011 SC 2689, held as under: "Awarding of death sentence amounts to taking away the life of an individual, which is the most valuable right available, whether viewed from the constitutional point of view or from the human rights point of view.

Result 9
Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Arun And Ors
Honourable Judges Gurvinder Singh Gill
Date of Judgment: 6 December 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 11
   
   
   

It is clear from the above decisions that on conviction under Section 302 IPC, the normal rule is to award punishment of life imprisonment and the for the rarest of rare cases. 91***. Whether a case falls within the rarest of the rare case or not, has to be examined with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case and the court has to take note of the aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances and conclude whether there was something uncommon about the crime which renders the sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls 15 of 111 Murder Reference No.03 of 2017 & other connected appeals 16 for death sentence. However, more than 12 years have elapsed since the act was committed, we are of the opinion that the life sentence awarded by the High Court need not be enhanced in view of the factual position discussed in the earlier paras." 46. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 5 SCC 317 in the case of Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan Vs. State of Bihar, have discussed the broad guidelines for imposition of death penalty. Their Lordships have also held as under :- "23. It is trite that death sentence can be inflicted only in a case which comes within the category of the rarest of rare cases but there is no hard-and-fast rule and parameter to decide this vexed issue. This Court had the occasion to consider the cases which can be termed as the rarest of rare cases and although certain comprehensive guidelines have been laid to adjudge this issue but no hard-and-fast formula of universal application has been laid down in this regard. Crimes are committed in so different and distinct circumstances that it is impossible to lay down comprehensive guidelines to decide this issue. Nevertheless it is widely accepted that in deciding this question the number of persons killed is not decisive. 24*. Further, crime being brutal and heinous itself does not turn the scale towards the death sentence. When the crime is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community and when collective conscience of the community is petrified, one has to lean towards the death sentence. But this is not the end.

Result 10
Allahabad High Court
Allahabad High CourtState Of U.P. vs Akhlak & Another
Honourable Judges Imtiyaz Murtaza, Virendra Kumar Dixit
Date of Judgment: 12 October 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 40
   
   
   

74. In the case of Swamy Shraddananad alias Murali Manohar Mishra Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 12 SCC 288, the Apex Court has observed in paragraphs 46-55 and 62 of the judgment as under: 46. We are not oblivious of the fact that there is a material difference distance between 'may be' and 'must be' and furthermore in a case of this nature the evidence must be considered with more than ordinary care lest the shocking nature of crime induce an instinctive reaction against a dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. [See Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh - AIR 1952 SC 159]. "47. The question, however, is as to whether in a case of this nature death sentence should be imposed. In Aloke Nath Dutta (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider a large number of decisions taking different views in regard to the interpretation of the words "rarest of rare cases" as adumbrated in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684]." 48.This Court had also the occasion therein to notice the growing demand in the international fora and in particular the second Optional Protocol to the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and the Protocol to the American Constitution on Human Rights abolished that death penalty should be abolished. 49. Recently, the Privy Council in Reyes v. R. [(2002) UKPC 11 : 12 BHRC 219] and Hughes, R. v. (Saint Lucia) [(2002) UKPC 12], noticing the decision of this Court in Mithu v. State of Punjab [(1983) 2 SCR 6903], opined that the mandatory death punishment is unconstitutional. [See also Fox v. The Queen (2002) 2 AC 284, Bowe v. The Queen (2006) 1 WLR 1623 and Coard & Ors. v. The Attorney General (Grenada), (2007) UKPC 7]. 50.Abolition of death penalty is not being and, in fact, cannot be advocated; but what requires serious consideration is as to whether the jurisdiction should not be invoked unless there exists an extra-ordinary situation to find that it comes within the purview of "rarest of rare" cases. The approach of the courts should not be to confine its thought process to the identification of a "rare" case. The expression "rarest of rare" case has been evolved by a Constitution Bench of this Court and, thus, demands a meaningful application.

Result 11
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin Kumar Singhraha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Judgment: 3 March 2016
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 25
   
   
   

For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed. (5) When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community." 69. The Supreme Court in Mofil Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand (2015 (1) SCC 67) in para 64 of its decision has expressed its view upon the "rarest of the rare" case as under:- "The "rarest of the rare" case exists when an Criminal Reference No.05/2015 Criminal Appeal No. 2303/2015 accused would be a menace, threat and antithetical to harmony in the society. Especially in cases where an accused does not act on provocation, acting on the spur of the moment but meticulously executes a deliberately planned crime in spite of understanding the probable consequence of his act, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment." 70. The Supreme Court has ruled in para 20 of its judgment rendered in Haresh Mohandas Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011 (12) SCC 56) thus; "The rarest of rare case when a convict would be menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of the "rarest of the rare case". 71. The Supreme Court has laid down the test of the rarest of the rare case in para 27 of its decision in Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph Vs. State of Maharashtra (2014 (4) SCC 69) thus; "The rarest of the rare test depends upon perception of the society i.e. "society-centric" and not "Judge-centric", that is, whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types of crimes or not. While applying that test, the court has to look into the variety of factors like society's abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of crimes like sexual assault and murder of minor girls, intellectually challenged minor girls, minors suffering from physical disability, old and infirm women, etc."

Result 12
Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... vs Akshay @ Santosh Datta Pachange
Honourable Judges Z. A. Haq, Vinay Joshi
Date of Judgment: 16 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 40
   
   
   

No doubt the accused no.2 has killed an innocent child aged 2 ½ years, however, whether such an act of accused constitutes "rarest of rare case" to warrant capital punishment, is a matter for consideration. 76. Recently this Court, in reported case of State of Maharashtra .vrs. Rajesh Dhannalal Daware [2016 (2) Crimes (HC) 592], has elaborately dealt with the aspect of imposing death penalty in paragraph no.95 of its judgment. The same reads as under : "The law as to in what circumstances death penalty would be warranted or not, has been succinctly laid down by the Judgment apeal171.17 Constitution Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jagmohan Singh .vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1973 (1) SCC 20, Bachan Singh .vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 (2) SCC 684 and also of the Bench of three Hon'ble Judges in the case of Macchi Singh and Others .vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 (3) SCC 470. Since then, there are various judicial pronouncements by the highest Court of the Country, further explaining the legal position. Recently, in the case of Shabnam, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have again reiterated the legal position. It will be appropriate to reproduce paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of the said Judgment. They are thus : "24. We would not lumber the discussion by tracing the entire death penalty jurisprudence as it has evolved in India, but only limit the exercise to cull out the determinants which would weigh large in our mind to award appropriate sentence while balancing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. We are mindful of the principles laid down by this Court in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 169; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580 and Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470: 1983 SCC (Cri) 681, as followed by this Court up to the present. The aforesaid decisions indicate that the most significant aspect of sentencing policy in Indian criminal jurisprudence regarding award of death penalty is that life sentence is a rule and death sentence is an exception only to be awarded in "the rarest of rare cases".

Result 13
Bombay High Court
Akshay Kailas Purohit (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Police ...
Honourable Judges Z. A. Haq, Vinay Joshi
Date of Judgment: 16 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 40
   
   
   

No doubt the accused no.2 has killed an innocent child aged 2 ½ years, however, whether such an act of accused constitutes "rarest of rare case" to warrant capital punishment, is a matter for consideration. 76. Recently this Court, in reported case of State of Maharashtra .vrs. Rajesh Dhannalal Daware [2016 (2) Crimes (HC) 592], has elaborately dealt with the aspect of imposing death penalty in paragraph no.95 of its judgment. The same reads as under : "The law as to in what circumstances death penalty would be warranted or not, has been succinctly laid down by the Judgment apeal171.17 Constitution Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jagmohan Singh .vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1973 (1) SCC 20, Bachan Singh .vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 (2) SCC 684 and also of the Bench of three Hon'ble Judges in the case of Macchi Singh and Others .vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 (3) SCC 470. Since then, there are various judicial pronouncements by the highest Court of the Country, further explaining the legal position. Recently, in the case of Shabnam, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have again reiterated the legal position. It will be appropriate to reproduce paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of the said Judgment. They are thus : "24. We would not lumber the discussion by tracing the entire death penalty jurisprudence as it has evolved in India, but only limit the exercise to cull out the determinants which would weigh large in our mind to award appropriate sentence while balancing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. We are mindful of the principles laid down by this Court in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 169; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580 and Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470: 1983 SCC (Cri) 681, as followed by this Court up to the present. The aforesaid decisions indicate that the most significant aspect of sentencing policy in Indian criminal jurisprudence regarding award of death penalty is that life sentence is a rule and death sentence is an exception only to be awarded in "the rarest of rare cases".

Result 14
Bombay High Court
Akshay @ Santosh Datta Pachange vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ...
Honourable Judges Z. A. Haq, Vinay Joshi
Date of Judgment: 16 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 40
   
   
   

No doubt the accused no.2 has killed an innocent child aged 2 ½ years, however, whether such an act of accused constitutes "rarest of rare case" to warrant capital punishment, is a matter for consideration. 76. Recently this Court, in reported case of State of Maharashtra .vrs. Rajesh Dhannalal Daware [2016 (2) Crimes (HC) 592], has elaborately dealt with the aspect of imposing death penalty in paragraph no.95 of its judgment. The same reads as under : "The law as to in what circumstances death penalty would be warranted or not, has been succinctly laid down by the Judgment apeal171.17 Constitution Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jagmohan Singh .vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1973 (1) SCC 20, Bachan Singh .vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 (2) SCC 684 and also of the Bench of three Hon'ble Judges in the case of Macchi Singh and Others .vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 (3) SCC 470. Since then, there are various judicial pronouncements by the highest Court of the Country, further explaining the legal position. Recently, in the case of Shabnam, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have again reiterated the legal position. It will be appropriate to reproduce paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of the said Judgment. They are thus : "24. We would not lumber the discussion by tracing the entire death penalty jurisprudence as it has evolved in India, but only limit the exercise to cull out the determinants which would weigh large in our mind to award appropriate sentence while balancing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. We are mindful of the principles laid down by this Court in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 169; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580 and Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470: 1983 SCC (Cri) 681, as followed by this Court up to the present. The aforesaid decisions indicate that the most significant aspect of sentencing policy in Indian criminal jurisprudence regarding award of death penalty is that life sentence is a rule and death sentence is an exception only to be awarded in "the rarest of rare cases".

Result 15
Bombay High Court
Sagar S/O. Kedarkumar Bagani vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
Honourable Judges Z. A. Haq, Vinay Joshi
Date of Judgment: 16 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 40
   
   
   

No doubt the accused no.2 has killed an innocent child aged 2 ½ years, however, whether such an act of accused constitutes "rarest of rare case" to warrant capital punishment, is a matter for consideration. 76. Recently this Court, in reported case of State of Maharashtra .vrs. Rajesh Dhannalal Daware [2016 (2) Crimes (HC) 592], has elaborately dealt with the aspect of imposing death penalty in paragraph no.95 of its judgment. The same reads as under : "The law as to in what circumstances death penalty would be warranted or not, has been succinctly laid down by the Judgment apeal171.17 Constitution Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jagmohan Singh .vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1973 (1) SCC 20, Bachan Singh .vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 (2) SCC 684 and also of the Bench of three Hon'ble Judges in the case of Macchi Singh and Others .vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 (3) SCC 470. Since then, there are various judicial pronouncements by the highest Court of the Country, further explaining the legal position. Recently, in the case of Shabnam, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have again reiterated the legal position. It will be appropriate to reproduce paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of the said Judgment. They are thus : "24. We would not lumber the discussion by tracing the entire death penalty jurisprudence as it has evolved in India, but only limit the exercise to cull out the determinants which would weigh large in our mind to award appropriate sentence while balancing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. We are mindful of the principles laid down by this Court in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 169; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580 and Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470: 1983 SCC (Cri) 681, as followed by this Court up to the present. The aforesaid decisions indicate that the most significant aspect of sentencing policy in Indian criminal jurisprudence regarding award of death penalty is that life sentence is a rule and death sentence is an exception only to be awarded in "the rarest of rare cases".

Result 16
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh @ Rakesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Honourable Judges H.P.Singh
Date of Judgment: 10 August 2017
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 38
   
   
   

The Court, therefore, has to consider matters like nature of the offence, how and under what circumstances it was committed, the extent of brutality with which the offence was committed, the motive for the offence, any provocative or aggravating circumstances at the time of commission of the crime, the possibility of the convict being reformed or rehabilitated, adequacy of the sentence of life imprisonment and other attendant circumstances. These factors cannot be similar or identical in any two given cases. 59. Thus, it is imperative for the Court to examine each case on its own facts, in light of the enunciated principles. It is only upon application of these principles to the facts of a given case that the Court can arrive at a final conclusion whether the case in hand is one of the 'rarest of rare' cases and imposition of death penalty alone shall serve the ends of justice. Further, the Court would also keep in mind that if such a punishment alone would serve the purpose of the judgment, in its being sufficiently punitive and purposefully preventive. xxx xxx xxx xxx 72. The above judgments provide us with the dicta of the Court relating to imposition of death penalty. Merely because a crime is heinous per se may not be a sufficient reason for the imposition of death penalty without reference to the other factors and attendant circumstances. 73. Most of the heinous crimes under the IPC are punishable by death penalty or life imprisonment. That by itself does not suggest that in all such offences, penalty of death alone should be awarded. We must notice, even at the cost of repetition, that in such cases awarding of life imprisonment would be a rule, while 'death' would be the exception. The term 'rarest of rare' case which is the consistent determinative rule declared by this Court, itself suggests that it has to be an exceptional case. 74. The life of a particular individual cannot be taken away except according to the procedure established by law and that is the constitutional mandate. The law contemplates recording of special reasons and, therefore, the expression 'special' has to be given a definite meaning and connotation. 'Special reasons' in contra-distinction to 'reasons' simpliciter conveys the legislative mandate of putting a restriction on exercise of judicial discretion by placing the requirement of special reasons.

Result 17
Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Kala Ram @ Kala Singh
Honourable Judges Gurvinder Singh Gill
Date of Judgment: 14 December 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
   
   
   

19. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2010) 9 SCC 567 in the case of C. Muniappan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu along with connected appeal, have laid down the social effect of punishment and proportional considerations, when the principle of rarest of rare rule is to be applied. Their Lordships have further held that death sentence can be given in rarest of rare cases if the "collective conscience" of a community is so shocked that death penalty is the only alternative. The "rarest of the rare case" comes when the convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. Their Lordships have also held as under :- "87. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab this Court expanded the "rarest of rare" formulation beyond the aggravating factors listed in Bachan Singh to cases where the "collective conscience" of a community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial powers to inflict the death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining the death penalty, and stated that in these cases such a penalty should be inflicted. But the Bench in this case underlined that full weightage must be accorded to the mitigating circumstances in a case and a just balance had to be struck between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Court further held that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration may be motive for, or the manner of commission of the crime, or the anti- social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as: 8 of 108 Murder Reference No.2 of 2018 & CRA-D-764-DB-2018 9 (i) Murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. (ii) Murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, is committed. (iii) Murder of an innocent child; a helpless woman, is committed. 91. Thus, it is evident that criminal law requires strict adherence to the rule of proportionality in providing punishment according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct keeping in mind the effect of not awarding just punishment on the society. The "rarest of the rare case" comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society.

Result 18
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh High CourtAjju @ Ajay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Judgment: 19 May 2017
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 36
   
   
   

Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, death sentence can be awarded. The community may entertain such sentiment in the following circumstances:- "(1) When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. (2) When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g. murder by hired assassin for money or reward; or cold-blooded murder for gains of a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust; or murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland. (3) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath, or in cases of 'bride burning' or 'dowry deaths' or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation. (4) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed. (5) When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community." 74. The Supreme Court in the case of Mofil Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand , (2015) 1 SCC 67, in para 64 of its Criminal Reference No.1/2014 and Cr.A. Nos. 3538/14, 1075/15, 3512/14 & 3598/14 decision has expressed its view upon the rarest of the rare case as under:- "The rarest of the rare case" exists when an accused would be a menace, threat and antithetical to harmony in the society. Especially in cases where an accused does not act on provocation, acting on the spur of the moment but meticulously executes a deliberately planned crime in spite of understanding the probable consequence of his act, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment."

Result 19
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin Kumar Singhraha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Judgment: 3 March 2016
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 24
   
   
   

67. In Macchi Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab (1983 (3) SCC 470), the Supreme Court has observed in para 39 of the decision that the following questions may be asked and answered as a test to determine the "rarest of the rare" cases in which death sentence can be inflicted. (a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? (b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigation circumstances which speak in favour of the offender? 68. The Supreme Court in Lehna Vs. State of Haryana (2002 (3) SCC 76), has defined in para 27 of the decision that the rarest of the rare case is one when the collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power center to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, death Criminal Reference No.05/2015 Criminal Appeal No. 2303/2015 sentence can be awarded. The community may entertain such sentiment in the following circumstances:- "(1) When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. (2) When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g. murder by hired assassin for money or reward; or cold-blooded murder for gains of a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust; or murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland. (3) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath, or in cases of 'bride burning' or 'dowry deaths' or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation. (4) When the crime is enormous in proportion.

Result 20
Allahabad High Court
Allahabad High CourtState Of U.P. vs Akhlak & Another
Honourable Judges Imtiyaz Murtaza, Virendra Kumar Dixit
Date of Judgment: 12 October 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 51
   
   
   

"A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed." An analytical reading of this formulation would reveal it to be an authoritative negative precept. "Rarest of rare cases" is an exceptionally narrow opening provided in the domain of this negative precept. This opening is also qualified by another condition in form of "when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed". 59. Thus, in essence, rarest of rare dictum imposes a wide-ranging embargo on award of death punishment, which can only be revoked if the facts of the case successfully satisfy double qualification enumerated below: 1. that the case belongs to the rarest of rare category 2. and the alternative option of life imprisonment will just not suffice in the facts of the case 60.The rarest of rare dictum serves as a guideline in enforcing section 354(3) and entrenches the policy that life imprisonment is the rule and death punishment is an exception. It is a settled law of interpretation that exceptions are to be construed narrowly. That being the case, the rarest of rare dictum places an extraordinary burden on the court, in case it selects death punishment as the favoured penalty, to carry out an objective assessment of facts to satisfy the exceptions ingrained in the rarest of rare dictum. 61.The background analysis leading to the conclusion that the case belongs to rarest of rare category must conform to highest standards of judicial rigor and thoroughness as the norm under analysis is an exceptionally narrow exception. A conclusion as to the rarest of rare aspect with respect to a matter shall entail identification of aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating both to the crime and the criminal. It was in this context noted: "161.....The expression "special reasons" in the context of this provision, obviously means "exceptional reasons" founded on the exceptionally grave circumstances of the particular case relating to the crime as well as the criminal". 66.The Rarest of rare dictum, as discussed above, hints at this difference between death punishment and the alternative punishment of life imprisonment.

Result 21
Delhi High Court
Delhi High CourtState Through Reference vs Ram Singh & Ors.
Honourable Judges Reva Khetrapal, Pratibha Rani
Date of Judgment: 13 March 2014
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 259
   
   
   

The court has to further enquire and believe that the accused condemned cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and shall continue with the criminal acts. In this way a balance sheet is to be prepared while considering the imposition of penalty of death of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and a just balance is to be struck. So long the death sentence is provided in the statute and when collective conscience of the community is petrified, it is expected that the holders of judicial power do not stammer dehors their personal opinion and inflict death penalty. These are the broad guidelines which this Court had laid down for imposition of the death penalty.€– 94. We fully agree with the above view as it has clarified the meaning of the expression the €•rarest of rare cases€–. To take a hypothetical case, supposing A murders B over a land dispute, this may be a case of ordinary murder deserving life sentence. However, if in addition to murdering B, A goes to the house of B and wipes out his entire family, then this will come in the category of the €•rarest of rare cases€– deserving death sentence. The expression the €•rarest of rare cases€– cannot, of course, be defined with complete exactitude. However, the broad guidelines in this connection have been explained by various decisions of this Court. As explained therein, the accused deserves death penalty where the murder was grotesque, diabolical, revolting or of a dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community, and when the collective conscience of the community is petrified, or outraged. It has also to be seen whether the accused is a menace to society and continues to do so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence. The court has to further enquire and believe that the accused cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and shall continue with his criminal acts.

Result 22
Uttarakhand High Court
Karandeep Sharma Alias Razia Alias Raju vs State Of Uttarakhand
Honourable Judges Rajiv Sharma, Alok Singh
Date of Judgment: 5 January 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 23
   
   
   

Their Lordships have also held as under :- "87. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab this Court expanded the "rarest of rare" formulation beyond the aggravating factors listed in Bachan Singh to cases where the "collective conscience" of a community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial powers to inflict the death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining the death penalty, and stated that in these cases such a penalty should be inflicted. But the Bench in this case underlined that full weightage must be accorded to the mitigating circumstances in a case and a just balance had to be struck between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Court further held that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration may be motive for, or the manner of commission of the crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as: (i) Murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. (ii) Murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, is committed. (iii) Murder of an innocent child; a helpless woman, is committed. 91. Thus, it is evident that criminal law requires strict adherence to the rule of proportionality in providing punishment according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct keeping in mind the effect of not awarding just punishment on the society. The "rarest of the rare case" comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. Where an accused does not act on any spur of the moment provocation and he indulged himself in a deliberately planned crime and meticulously executed it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment for such a ghastly crime. 92. Life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty an exception. Therefore, the court must satisfy itself that death penalty would be the only punishment which can be meted out to a convict. The court has to consider whether any other punishment would be completely inadequate and what would be the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the case. Murder is always foul, however, the degree of brutality, depravity and diabolic nature differ in each case.

Result 23
Bombay High Court
Arvind S/O Abhilash Singh (In Jail) vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S. ...
Honourable Judges B.R. Gavai, Swapna Joshi
Date of Judgment: 5 May 2016
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 90
   
   
   

The balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances fully tilts in favour of the aggravating circumstances. In that view of the matter, we find that the present case deserves to be treated as the 'rarest of the rare case'. 111] The Apex Court in various cases has held that the rarest of rare test depends upon the perception of the Society i.e. the CONF.1.2016 approach should be "society-centric" and not "judge centric". The test has to be applied as to whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to the crime in question or not. 112] In the case of Macchi Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 (3) SCC 470, Their Lordships of the Apex Court observed thus : "The Court is required to consider whether the collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders of judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty." 113] As such, while deciding the present case, we will have to keep ourself aloof from our personal opinion as regarding the desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty. What is required by us, is to decide as to whether in the perception of the society at large, the present case is a case which can be considered as rarest of rare case warranting death sentence. 114] We may gainfully refer to the words of Lord Denning, which have been quoted by Their Lordships of the Apex Court in the CONF.1.2016 case of Deepak Rai .vs. State of Bihar reported in (2013) 10 SCC 421, on the very purpose of imposition of a punishment. They are thus : " ... the punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrongdoing; and, in order to maintain respect for the law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else.... The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrongdoer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not. " 115] It will also be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana (cited supra).

Result 24
Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... vs Akshay @ Santosh Datta Pachange
Honourable Judges Z. A. Haq, Vinay Joshi
Date of Judgment: 16 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 41
   
   
   

Death sentence must be imposed only when Judgment apeal171.17 life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. The circumstances which should or should not be taken into account, and the circumstances which should be taken into account along with other circumstances, as well as the circumstances which may, by themselves, be sufficient, in the exercise of the discretion regarding sentence cannot be exhaustively enumerated." It could further be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various decisions has culled out various aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The principles have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, requiring the Court to apply the test to determine, if it was the 'rarest of the rare' case for imposition of death sentence. The Court must come to the conclusion that imposition of any other punishment i.e. life imprisonment would be completely inadequate and would not meet the ends of justice. It has further been held that the death sentence should be imposed when the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be consciously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all relevant circumstances. It has Judgment apeal171.17 been further laid down that the Court should take into consideration the method (planned or otherwise) and the manner (extent of brutality and inhumanity, etc.) in which the crime was committed and the circumstances leading to commission of such heinous crime. 77. Keeping in view the above settled principles, the case in hand is to be decided on its own facts to see whether it falls in the category of rarest of rare case to attract capital punishment. We have briefly recapitulated the entire episode. Besides death of a child, there is nothing uncommon to turn it as a most heinous or rare case. One must remember that the accused was just 19 years of age at the time of commission of crime who has no anticidents. There was no previous enmity between accused no.2 and informant. There are no circumstances to indicate that life imprisonment can be construed as inadequate punishment.

Result 25
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Adiwasi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Honourable Judges Akhil Kumar Srivastava
Date of Judgment: 17 August 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 10
   
   
   

In Paragraph Nos.37,38,39, the Apex Court has observed as under:- 37. In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh's case (supra) will have to be culled out and applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentences arises. The following propositions emerge from Bachan Singh's case: (i) the extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability; (ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration alongwith the circumstances of the 'crime'. (iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. (iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances has to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised. 38. In order to apply these guidelines inter-alia the following questions may be asked and answered: (a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? (b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender? 39. If upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid proposition and taking into account the answers to the questions posed here in above, the circumstances of the case are such that death sentence is warranted, the court would proceed to do so. 14. In the case of Mofil Khan Versus State of Jharkhand reported in (2015) 1 SCC 67, the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the meaning of "the rarest of rare case".

Result 26
Delhi High Court
Delhi High CourtVishal Yadav vs State Govt. Of Up
Honourable Judges Gita Mittal, J.R. Midha
Date of Judgment: 6 February 2015
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 386
   
   
   

494 5. The method (planned or otherwise) and the manner (extent of brutality and inhumanity, etc.) in which the crime was committed and the circumstances leading to commission of such heinous crime.€– 19. We remind ourselves that the doctrine of €•rarest of rare€– does not classify murders into categories of heinous or less heinous. The difference between two is not in the identity of the principles, but lies in the realm of application thereof to individual fact situations. Sentences of severity are imposed to reflect the seriousness of the crime, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offence, to afford adequate deterrent to criminal conduct and to protect the community from further similar conduct. It serves a three-fold purpose-punitive, deterrent and protective. xxx xxx xxx 45. The crime test, criminal test and the €•rarest of the rare€– test are certain tests evolved by this Court. The tests basically examine whether the society abhors such crimes and whether such crimes shock the conscience of the society and attract intense and extreme indignation of the community. The cases exhibiting pre- meditation and meticulous execution of the plan to murder by leveling a calculated attack on the victim to annihilate him, have been held to be fit cases for imposing death penalty. Where innocent minor children, unarmed persons, helpless women and old and infirm persons have been killed in a brutal manner by persons in dominating position, and where after ghastly murder displaying depraved mentality, the accused have shown no remorse, death penalty has been imposed. Where it is established that the accused is a hardened criminal and has committed murder in a diabolic manner and where it is felt that reformation and rehabilitation of such a person is impossible and if let free, he would be a menace to the society, this Court has not hesitated to confirm death sentence. Many a time, in cases of brutal murder, Crl.A.Nos.910, 741, 958/2008, Crl.Rev.P.No.369/2008, Crl.A.Nos.1322/2011 & 145/2012 pg. 495 exhibiting depravity and callousness, this Court has acknowledged the need to send a deterrent message to those who may embark on such crimes in future.

Result 27
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Adiwasi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Honourable Judges Akhil Kumar Srivastava
Date of Judgment: 17 August 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 11
   
   
   

The relevant portion of Paragraph No.64 is reproduced as under:- "The rarest of the rare case" exits when an accused would be a menace, threat and antithetical to harmony in the society. Especially in cases where an accused does not act on provocation, acting on the spur of the moment but meticulously executes a deliberately planned crime in spite of understanding the probable consequence of his act, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment." 15. In the case of Haresh Mohandas Rajput Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 12 SCC 56, the Apex Court has emphasized the connotation "the rarest of the rare". The relevant portion of Paragraph No.56 is reproduced as under:- "The rarest of the rare case comes when a convict would be menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of "the rarest of the rare case." 16. In the case of Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 4 SCC 69, the Apex Court in Paragraph No.27 has clarified the real test of "the rarest of the rare case" which is reproduced as under:- "The rarest of the rare test depends upon the perception of the society that is "society- centric" and not "Judge-centric", that is, whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types of crimes or not. While applying that test, the Court has to look into the variety of factors like society's abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of crimes like sexual assault and murder of minor girls, intellectually challenged minor girls, minors suffering from physical disability, old and infirm women, etc." 17. In the case of Santosh Kumar Versus State Through C.B.I reported in (2010) 9 SCC 747, the Apex Court has explained the philosophy behind "the rarest of the rare case". The relevant portion of in Paragraph No.98 is reproduced as under:- "Undoubtedly, the sentencing part is a difficult one and often exercises the mind of the Court but where the option is between a life sentence and a death sentence, the options are indeed extremely limited and if the Court itself feels some difficulty in awarding one or the other, it is only appropriate that the lesser sentence should be awarded. This is the underlying philosophy behind "the rarest of the rare" principle."

Result 28
Kerala High Court
The State Of Kerala vs Govindaswamy
Honourable Judges T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Date of Judgment: 11 November 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 149
   
   
   

It was further held that, it cannot be said that death penalty violates the basic structure of the Constitution. 413. In Ramdeo Chouhan v. State of Assam [(2001) 5 SCC 714], it was held:- D.S.R.3/2011, Crl. Appeal 149/2012 "Apart from the two schools of thought putting forward their respective points of view stridently - one pleading for retention of death penalty and the other for abolition of it- a serious question arose whether the law enabling the State to take away the life of a person by way of punishment would be hit by the forbid contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab the majority Judges of the Constitution Bench saved the death penalty from being chopped out of the statute book by ordering that death penalty should' be strictly restrict to the tiniest category of the rarest of the rare cases in which the lesser alternative is unquestionably foreclosed." 414. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470], it was held that where there was no provocation from the part of the victim for murder, or the murder was committed in an extremely brutal grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner which aroused intense and extreme indignation of the community, the case can be brought within the purview of the D.S.R.3/2011, Crl. Appeal 149/2012 rarest of rare cases. It was further held that the motivation of the perpetrator, the vulnerability of the victim, the enormity of the crime, the execution thereof are factors which normally weigh with the court in awarding the death sentence terming it as the 'rarest of rare cases'. 415. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal [(1994) 2 SCC 220], the Apex Court has considered a case of rape and murder of a young girl of 18 years and held that a real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life is required to be kept in mind by the courts while considering the confirmation of the sentence of death; but a cold-blooded and pre-planned murder without any provocation, after committing rape on an innocent and defenceless young girl of 18 years exists in the rarest of rare cases which calls for no punishment other than capital punishment.

Result 29
Gujarat High Court
Gujarat High CourtTrikambhai @ Tiko Ravajibhai Thakor vs State Of Gujarat
Honourable Judges R.R. Tripathi
Date of Judgment: 10 May 2000
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 73
   
   
   

To determine as to whether a particular case is a rarest of rare case or not, the answers to the following questions would be helpful. (a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders the sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? (b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances, which speak in favour of the offender? 30. Applying the principles, as enunciated above on the basis of various decisions, to the facts of the present case, we find that on the one hand there are aggravating circumstances with regard to the rape and murder of a minor girl of about 5 years of age, who was totally unprotected as also the brutality and the depravity with regard to the manner in which the crime has been committed and on the other hand there are mitigating circumstances that the accused is a boy of 20 years i.e. in the age of adolescence, he is not a hardened criminal with any criminal record in past, his father had already expired, seeming to be ignorant of social and moral values, cannot be said to be a menace to the society, it appears to be a case of impulsive bravado of sex and that he wanted to satisfy his sexual urge on the date of the incident and in the process the murder was also committed. The scope and concept of mitigating factors to determine as to whether the death penalty is warranted or not have to be given a liberal and extensive construction after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances. According to the observations made in Bachan Singh's case (Supra - AIR 1980 SC 898) the Judges should never be blood thirsty, hanging of murderers has never been too good, the Courts have inflicted the extreme penalty with extreme infrequency, that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception, a real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentality and that ought not to have been done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.

Result 30
Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Arun And Ors
Honourable Judges Gurvinder Singh Gill
Date of Judgment: 6 December 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
   
   
   

Thus the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 43. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, have categorically held that the death penalty is to be imposed only when the alternative of life imprisonment is totally inadequate, and therefore unquestionably foreclosed, i.e. if it is the only inevitable conclusion. The aggravating circumstances shall also be taken into consideration. 44. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2010) 9 SCC 567 in the case of C. Muniappan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu along with connected appeal, have laid down the social effect of punishment and proportional considerations, when the principle of rarest of rare rule is to be applied. Their Lordships have further held that death sentence can be given in rarest of rare cases if the "collective conscience" of a community is so shocked that death penalty is the only alternative. The "rarest of the rare case" comes when the convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. Their Lordships have also held as under :- "87. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab this Court expanded the "rarest of rare" formulation beyond the aggravating factors listed in Bachan Singh to cases where the "collective conscience" of a community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial powers to inflict the death penalty irrespective of their personal 13 of 111 Murder Reference No.03 of 2017 & other connected appeals 14 opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining the death penalty, and stated that in these cases such a penalty should be inflicted. But the Bench in this case underlined that full weightage must be accorded to the mitigating circumstances in a case and a just balance had to be struck between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Court further held that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration may be motive for, or the manner of commission of the crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as: (i) Murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. (ii) Murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, is committed. (iii) Murder of an innocent child; a helpless woman, is committed.


Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is intended for informational purposes only and is designed to assist legal professionals, law students, and other professionals such as Chartered Accountants (CA), Company Secretaries (CS), and Cost and Management Accountants (CMA). Patodia Infotech Private Limited utilizes artificial intelligence (AI) to generate information based on various laws, acts of India, and judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Tribunals of India. However, we do not make any guarantees regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information provided.

Legal professionals are advised to independently verify the information and conduct their own research to validate its applicability to specific cases or situations. The contents of this website do not constitute legal advice, and reliance on them should be at the discretion and risk of the individual legal professional.

Patodia Infotech Private Limited hereby disclaims all representations and warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the contents. We shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of or reliance on the information provided on this website.

By accessing and using this website, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Patodia Infotech Private Limited and its affiliates from any claims, damages, losses, or liabilities arising from your use of or reliance on the information presented herein.

Information

  • Patodia Infotech Private Limited (CIN: U52609KA2017PTC103319) 15th Main, 17th Cross J P Nagar, 5th Phase Bangalore 560 078 Karnataka, India

  • +91 806 840 2226

Menu

Quick Links

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Sign up to VakilAI’s monthly newsletter to get the latest updates.

We don’t send you any spam emails

Copyright © VakilAI | All Right Reserved


Copyright © 2021-2025 Patodia Infotech Private Limited, All Rights Reserved.