Why in news?

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 push for the death penalty and public outcry, the court upheld the Supreme Court's principle of reserving the death penalty for the "rarest of rare" cases, considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances as outlined in the Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) judgment.

What’s in today’s article?

• Death Penalty - Rarest of rare test
• Death Penalty - Aggravating Circumstances
• Death Penalty - Mitigating Circumstances
• Evolving Understanding of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances Post-Bachan Singh
• Stage of Trial: When Should Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances Be Considered?

Death Penalty - Rarest of rare test

• In the 1980 Bachan Singh case, the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty but restricted its imposition to the “rarest of rare” cases, where no possibility of reform exists.
• While it did not provide exact standards, the court outlined lists of aggravating and mitigating circumstances to guide decisions.

Death Penalty - Aggravating Circumstances

• Premeditated and Brutal Acts: Murder that is pre-planned, calculated, and involves extreme brutality.
• Exceptional Depravity: Acts showing extraordinary cruelty.
• Targeting Public Servants: Killing public servants, police officers, or armed forces personnel on duty or due to lawful actions.

Death Penalty - Mitigating Circumstances

• Mental or Emotional Disturbance: Offender acting under extreme mental or emotional stress.
• Age of the Accused: If the offender is very young or very old.
• Threat to Society: Low likelihood of the offender being a continuing danger.
• Possibility of Reform: Potential for the offender’s rehabilitation.
• Acting Under Influence: Offender was acting on someone else’s directions or had moral justification.
• Mental Impairment: Offender’s inability to understand the criminality of their actions due to mental illness.

Evolving Understanding of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances Post-Bachan Singh

• Over time, courts have added new dimensions to aggravating and mitigating factors, refining the application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
• Age of the Accused
  • Young Age as a Mitigating Factor:
    • Cases like Ramnaresh and Ors v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) and Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan (2011) highlighted that young age (below 30) could indicate reform potential.
• Inconsistent Application:
• The Law Commission’s 262nd Report (2015) noted inconsistent consideration of age.
• In Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the SC categorized similar cases into groups where age was either emphasized or ignored.
• RG Kar Case: The convict, Sanjoy Roy, is 35 years old, which may weigh against age as a mitigating factor.
• Nature of the Offence
  • Need for Comparison:
    • Shankar Khade case emphasized comparing the case to similar offences to prevent subjective application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
  • Shock to Collective Conscience:
    • In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the SC held that the death penalty could be imposed if the crime shocks society's collective conscience.
    • However, this approach focuses on the crime’s circumstances, often ignoring the offender’s reform potential.
• Possibility of Reform
  • Bachan Singh Principle
    • The SC established that the government must prove there is no possibility of reform, with a presumption against the death penalty.
  • Objectivity in Sentencing
    • In Santosh Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009), the SC underscored the need for clear evidence to demonstrate that the convict is beyond reform, ensuring objectivity in sentencing decisions.
  • Law Commission’s Observation
    • The 2015 report stressed the importance of evidence to support the claim that reformation is impossible.
• Key Observations
  • The evolution of mitigating and aggravating factors has exposed inconsistencies, especially regarding age and the subjective interpretation of “rarest of rare” cases.
  • Courts are encouraged to balance the crime's nature, the offender's circumstances, and the potential for reform to ensure a just sentencing process.

Stage of Trial: When Should Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances Be Considered?

• Separate Sentencing Trial
  • In Bachan Singh, the SC mandated a separate trial after conviction to allow judges to hear arguments on why the death penalty should not be imposed.
  • Timing: The SC has varied in its rulings:
    • It can take place on the same day (several rulings).
    • It requires a “real, effective, and meaningful hearing” (Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra, 2020).
• Issues with Same-Day Sentencing
  • Lack of Meaningful Hearing
    • In Dattaraya case, the absence of a proper sentencing hearing was deemed a valid reason to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.
  • Suo Motu Proceedings (2022)
    • The SC questioned whether same-day sentencing meets the standard of meaningful and effective hearings and referred the matter to a larger Bench for creating uniform guidelines.
• Disadvantage to the Convict
  • Aggravating vs. Mitigating Circumstances:
    • Aggravating factors are part of the case record and readily available to judges.
    • Mitigating factors are presented only after conviction, creating an imbalance against the convict.
  • Judicial Concern:
    • The SC highlighted this imbalance, emphasizing the need for a fairer approach to sentencing.
• Need for Uniform Guidelines
  • The SC acknowledged inconsistencies in sentencing hearings and referred the matter to a larger Bench to establish a uniform process for considering mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases.