Context : Sentences in the Two Cases
R.G. Kar Medical College Case
- Crime: Rape and murder of a female doctor on duty (August 9, 2024).
- Accused: Sanjay Roy, a civic volunteer.
- Verdict: Life imprisonment with a fine.
- Reasoning: Court stated it did not qualify as ‘rarest of rare’ despite the heinous nature of the crime.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity , Judiciary)
Sharon Murder Case
- Crime: Sharon Raj, a 23-year-old student, was poisoned by his partner, Greeshma (October 14, 2022).
- Verdict: Death penalty awarded by Neyyattinkara Additional Sessions Court.
- Reasoning: Court deemed the premeditation, betrayal, and cruelty involved as fitting the ‘rarest of rare’ category.
Differences Between the Two Sentences
- Nature of Crime:
- R.G. Kar Case: Crime of opportunity with no prolonged planning.
- Sharon Case: Premeditated with deliberate betrayal and calculated execution.
- Victim-Offender Relationship:
- R.G. Kar Case: Perpetrator and victim were strangers.
- Sharon Case: Crime involved a personal relationship, deepening the breach of trust.
- Judicial Assessment:
- R.G. Kar Case: Despite the brutality, court found insufficient grounds for death penalty.
- Sharon Case: Considered morally reprehensible and meriting the severest punishment.
Constitutional Validity of the Death Penalty
- Upheld by the Supreme Court:
- Jagmohan Singh vs. State of U.P. (1973): Held death penalty constitutional under Article 21 (Right to Life), provided due process is followed.
- Arguments Against: Claimed violation of Articles 14 and 19 but dismissed by the court.
- Current Standing:
- Death penalty remains constitutional but restricted to the ‘rarest of rare’ cases.
- Judicial discretion is pivotal in determining the punishment.
Circumstances for Awarding Death Penalty
- Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980):
- Introduced the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine.
- Emphasized consideration of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
- Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983): Framework provided under five categories:
- Manner of Commission: Extreme brutality or shock to community conscience.
- Motive: Reflects total depravity or heinous intentions.
- Social Impact: Crimes causing community-wide outrage (e.g., targeting vulnerable groups).
- Magnitude: Multiple murders or crimes affecting large groups.
- Victim’s Status: Children, elderly, disabled, or helpless women.
Role of Judicial Discretion
- Broad Judicial Latitude:
- Judges weigh mitigating factors (e.g., age, mental state, absence of criminal record) against aggravating factors (e.g., brutality, premeditation).
- Lack of Uniform Criteria:
- No precise definition of ‘rarest of rare’ leads to varied interpretations.
- Recent Developments:
- 2022: Supreme Court considering uniform guidelines for assessing mitigating circumstances at trial stage.
Conclusion
While the death penalty is constitutionally valid, its application hinges on contextual factors and judicial interpretation under the ‘rarest of rare’ principle.
