Rarest of Rare Case Based on Society's Perception: SC
The 'rarest of rare case' test is not 'judge centric' but depends on the perception of society and whether it would approve the award of death sentence to those convicted in certain types of crimes, the Supreme Court has held.

"Courts award death sentence, because situation demands, due to constitutional compulsion, reflected by the will of the people, and not judge-centric," a bench headed by Justice K S Radhakrishnan said.

"To award death sentence, the aggravating circumstances (crime test) have to be fully satisfied and there should be no mitigating circumstance (criminal test) favouring the accused.

"Even if both the tests are satisfied as against the accused, even then the court has to finally apply the rarest of rare cases test, which depends on the perception of the society and not judge-centric, that is whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types of crime," the bench also comprising Justice Dipak Misra said.

The observations were made in a judgement by the apex court which commuted the death penalty awarded to two men for hacking to death four members of a family in August, 2000 over a property dispute, in Punjab.

The apex court modified their punishment to life imprisonment of 30 years, saying "so far as this case is concerned the extreme sentence of capital punishment is not warranted".

Gurvail and Satnam Singh were awarded death penalty by a trial court in 2000. The punishment was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2005.

The court while modifying their punishment said, "Some of the mitigating circumstances, as enunciated in Machhi Singh case, come to the rescue of the appellants. Age definitely is a factor which cannot be ignored, though not determinative factor in all fact situations. The probability that accused persons could be reformed and rehabilitated is also a factor to be borne in mind."

Gurvail was 34-years-old at that time of committing the crime, while Satnam was 22-years-old.

The apex court in its 13-page judgement also observed that while awarding death sentence, the court has to look into variety of factors like "society's abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of crimes like rape and murder of minor girls, especially intellectually challenged minor girls, minor girls with physical disability, old and infirm women etc.", and clarified that the examples are illustrative and not exhaustive.
Emerging story. Watch this space for updates as more details come in
Follow us on Twitter for all updates, like us on Facebook for important and fun stuff
Translate into:
© Copyright PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of any PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.


Post a Comment
Share your thoughts
You are not logged in, please log in or register
Must See
Daily Mail
Digression

3/D-100
Feb 10, 2013
04:23 PM

The 'rarest of rare case' test is not 'judge centric' but depends on the perception of society and whether it would approve the award of death sentence to those convicted in certain types of crimes, the Supreme Court has held.

Translation :

"We listen to the howling of the baying mob, and when the decibels exceed a certain value, we award the death penalty".

Oh. One more thing.

"All that nonsense about acting without fear or favour - forget it".

Bonita, Chennai
2/D-92
Feb 10, 2013
03:22 PM

".... that is whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types of crime,"

Really!!! So captial punishment is based on the judge's perception, god knows determined how, that society (and interestingly ours isn't a monolith and as diverse as it can be imagined, we so proudly proclaim from the tree-tops) will approve the death sentence - in some sense a popularity context. And this for a punishment that is "FULL & FINAL", i.e., once enacted irreversible. If there is a screw up - there is a screw up and the fig leaf of the "process of law" prevailed is all that is left to protect us. He is also indirectly accepting - that death sentence is really society's revenge/retribution for some "crimes" and interestingly the "some" might be subject to amongst other things malaise existing at the time in society too.

I do often scratch my head and wonder the quality of our judges, given some of the editorial/side comments they keep passing. I guess no part of society, judges included can escape the deep malaise of "kaljug" we as a society find ourselves in.

Arun Maheshwari, Bangalore
1/D-82
Feb 10, 2013
01:37 PM

Judicial gobbledegook does not hide the basic arbitrariness in many of these decisions. I certainly do not envy the justices their task.

Anwaar, Dallas
Order by

Order by

Order by

ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY

OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: