Context:

Sanjoy Roy, convicted of raping and murdering a doctor at RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata, was sentenced to life imprisonment by a sessions court. Despite the CBI’s demand for the death penalty and public outcry, the court applied the Supreme Court’s principle of reserving the death penalty for the “rarest of rare” cases, considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Rarest of Rare Doctrine

The Bachan Singh case (1980) established the "rarest of rare" doctrine, which limits the death penalty's application. It can only be imposed when:

• The crime shocks society’s collective conscience.
• The offender is beyond reform and remains a threat to society.

About Aggravating Circumstances for Death Penalty

• Premeditation and Brutality: If the murder was pre-planned, calculated, and involved extreme brutality.
• Exceptional Depravity: If the crime demonstrates extraordinary cruelty.
• Murder of Public Servants: If the murder involves a public servant, police officer, or armed forces member on duty, or due to their lawful actions.

Mitigating Factors Against Death Penalty

• Mental or Emotional Disturbance: The offender acted under extreme mental or emotional stress.
• Age of the Accused: Younger or elderly offenders may have greater potential for reform.
• Possibility of Reform: The offender could be rehabilitated.
• Acting Under Influence: If the offender acted under someone’s direction or had moral justification.
• Mental Impairment: The offender was unable to understand the criminality of their actions due to mental illness.

Evolution of Legal Precedents

• Young Age as a Mitigating Factor: Cases like Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) recognized young offenders as having a higher chance of reform.
• Inconsistent Consideration of Age: The Law Commission’s 262nd Report (2015) called for a more uniform approach to factoring age into sentencing.
• Comparing Similar Offences: In Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the Supreme Court emphasized comparing similar cases to ensure consistency in sentencing.

Challenges and Inconsistencies in Sentencing

Despite the Bachan Singh guidelines, the death penalty’s application remains inconsistent:

• Imbalance in Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: Aggravating factors are available in case records, while mitigating factors are introduced post-conviction, creating an imbalance.
• Sentencing Hearing Issues: In Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra (2020), the absence of a proper sentencing hearing led to the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court also questioned whether same-day sentencing provides a meaningful opportunity for the convict to present mitigating factors.
• Need for Uniform Guidelines: The Supreme Court has referred the matter to a larger Bench to establish uniform guidelines for considering mitigating factors in death penalty cases.

Conclusion

The death penalty in India remains a subject of legal complexity. The "rarest of rare" principle ensures it is only applied in extreme cases. However, inconsistencies in how mitigating and aggravating factors are considered and issues with sentencing hearings continue to challenge fairness in the judicial process. The Supreme Court’s efforts to establish uniform guidelines aim to create a more balanced approach to capital punishment in India.