Challenges in Death Penalty and Sentencing Decisions

Source: The post Challenges in Death Penalty and Sentencing Decisions has been created, based on the article “Mitigating circumstances: Why RG Kar rape case convict was not given death penalty” published in “Indian Express” on 21st January 2025

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2 – Governance – Criminal Justice System in India

Context: The article discusses the RG Kar rape case verdict, life imprisonment for Sanjoy Roy, and debates on imposing the death penalty. It explains the “rarest of rare” doctrine, factors influencing sentencing, and challenges in ensuring fair hearings for mitigating circumstances.

For detailed information on Execution of death penalty in India read this article here

What is the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine?

1. The Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) upheld the death penalty but restricted it to “rarest of rare” cases.
2. Courts must assess aggravating circumstances (e.g., extreme brutality, premeditation) and mitigating circumstances (e.g., emotional disturbance, potential for reform) before imposing death.
3. The “rarest of rare” doctrine has evolved to focus on both the crime and the convict. Initially, decisions like Machhi Singh (1983) emphasized shocking society’s conscience. Later cases, such as Santosh Bariyar (2009), highlighted reform potential.

For detailed information on Death penalty: Deciding the rarest of the rare read this article here

What Are Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances?

1. Aggravating Circumstances

• Crimes involving extreme brutality or pre-planned acts, as in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983).
• Murder of public servants, such as police officers, during duty.
• Acts showing exceptional depravity, shocking society’s conscience.

2. Mitigating Circumstances

• Emotional or mental disturbance during the crime (Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab).
• Age: Young (below 30) or old convicts (Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2012).
• Potential for reformation: Must be proven irredeemable (Santosh Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, 2009).

What are current challenges in death penalty cases?

1. Subjective Application of the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine: In Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the Supreme Court noted inconsistent sentencing in similar cases. Some convicts received the death penalty, while others were spared, highlighting judge-centric outcomes.
2. Imbalance Between Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: The SC, in suo motu proceedings (2022), noted that aggravating factors are part of the case record, but mitigating factors are introduced only after conviction. This creates a “hopeless disadvantage” for the convict.
3. Inadequate Sentencing Hearings: The SC in Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra (2020) commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment because the convict was denied a “real, effective and meaningful hearing” during sentencing.
4. Limited Focus on Reform: In Santosh Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009), the SC emphasized that the prosecution must provide clear evidence proving the impossibility of reform. Lack of such evidence undermines objectivity in sentencing.
5. Overemphasis on Shocking Society’s Conscience: In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the SC allowed death sentences in cases where the “collective conscience” of society is shocked. The Law Commission later criticized this approach for neglecting the convict’s circumstances.
6. Inconsistent Use of Age as a Mitigating Factor: The SC in cases like Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) considered youth (below 30) a reason for leniency. However, in Shankar Khade, the SC found age inconsistently applied across similar cases.

Question for practice:

Examine the challenges associated with ensuring fair sentencing hearings in death penalty cases.