“Evolution in Death Penalty Jurisprudence: A Journey through Case Analysis”

“Every death penalty case before the court deals with a human life that enjoys certain
constitutional protections and if life is to be taken away, then the process must adhere to
the strictest and highest constitutional standards. Our conscience as judges, which is
guided by constitutional principles, cannot allow anything less than that.”
– Justice Kurian Joseph

Introduction:

Legislative changes, notably in Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), signify a pivotal shift in the treatment of death as a punishment for murder.¹ In cases where the conviction is for an offense that carries the penalty of death or imprisonment for life or a specific term, the judgment must articulate the rationale behind the imposed sentence. Moreover, if the sentence entails death, the judgment must explicitly delineate the special reasons justifying such a sentence.This transformation has instigated a significant evolution in the judiciary, prompting a nuanced discourse on the death penalty. Central to this discussion is the exploration of how aggravating and mitigating factors should be considered in capital punishment cases.

Acknowledging the existing disparities in criminal sentencing, where some individuals face severe penalties while others receive markedly different punishments for similar crimes, it is crucial to uphold consistent justice. While recognizing the inherent challenge of a one-size-fits-all formula for sentencing, the overarching objective should be to appropriately penalize crimes, ensuring satisfaction for both victims and society.

In the absence of specific laws guiding sentencing, judges must carefully consider various factors and meticulously weigh aggravating circumstances against mitigating ones. It is imperative to ensure that the decision regarding whether a person’s life should be spared or not is made through a thoughtful and objective evaluation, rather than being subject to individual whims.

Case Analysis:

The Bachan Singh Framework: In the pivotal case of Bachan Singh v State of Punjab², the Supreme Court introduced a sentencing framework aimed at guiding courts in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty. The primary objective was to curtail judicial discretion and mitigate the arbitrary application of capital punishment. However, the framework itself has encountered challenges and criticisms, particularly due to its inherent ambiguity. The Court underscored that life imprisonment is the standard, with the death penalty considered an exceptional measure. According to the Court, the latter should be reserved for only the most extraordinary cases where the possibility of life imprisonment is unequivocally ruled out, emphasizing the rarity of such circumstances. 

Ambiguities in the Bachan Singh Framework:

Lack of Clarity on Sentencing Factors: While Bachan Singh outlines a non-exhaustive list of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it falls short of elucidating their significance in the sentencing process. This lack of precision has granted courts the leeway to interpret and apply these factors subjectively, potentially resulting in disparate judgments.

Subjectivity and Individualized Punishment: The framework’s emphasis on individualized punishment and consideration of mitigating circumstances introduces subjectivity into the sentencing process. It fails to specify who should present mitigating evidence, creating room for variations in its presentation and evaluation.

The ‘Rarest of Rare’ Concept and Machhi Singh: 

After the precedent set by Bachan Singh, the ‘rarest of rare’ concept was incorporated in the case of Machhi Singh v State of Punjab³. The primary goal of this concept was to pinpoint specific situations where the imposition of the death penalty would be considered appropriate. It asserted that Bachan Singh established guidelines for determining appropriate sentences, required a balance sheet of comprehensive assessment of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. This process involves assigning full weight to mitigating factors and ensuring a fair equilibrium between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Courts may opt for the death penalty if, upon a holistic examination of all circumstances, the case justifies such a severe sentence. However, challenges persist in the consistent application of this concept.

Arbitrariness and Limited Application: Despite efforts to establish sentencing guidelines, difficulties persist in the consistent application of the ‘rarest of rare’ concept. The subjective nature of determining what qualifies as the ‘rarest of rare’ has resulted in arbitrary and infrequent application of the death penalty.

Public Opinion and Subjectivity: 

In Dhananjoy Chaterjee v State of West Bengal⁴ case the Supreme Court emphasized that punishment should align with the severity of the crime, reflecting public condemnation. It stressed the need for courts to weigh not only the rights of the criminal but also those of the victim and society when determining an appropriate sentence. 

The introduction of the notion that the death penalty could be justified when the “collective conscience” of society is profoundly disturbed introduces an additional layer of subjectivity. Decisions influenced by public sentiment may pose the risk of judges substituting their perspectives for public opinions, raising concerns about objectivity. Frequent instances of arbitrariness in sentencing give rise to questions about equal protection under the law.

The R-R Test: 

The case of Shankar Kisanrao Khade v State of Maharashtra⁵ highlights the pivotal role of evidence in determining death sentences. The Court stressed the application of specific tests, namely the “crime test,” the “criminal test,” and the “Rarest of Rare Case” test (R-R Test), while explicitly rejecting a balancing test. To award death sentence, the “crime test” necessitates complete satisfaction at 100%, while the “criminal test” demands 0% mitigating circumstances in favor of the accused. Even if both tests indicate the presence of aggravating circumstances to the fullest extent and an absence of mitigating factors, the R-R Test must be applied. R-R Test depends upon the perception of the society that is “society centric” and not “Judge centric” that is, whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types of crimes or not.  Concerns were expressed regarding the impracticality of the ‘rarest of rare’ criterion without empirical evidence, making the assessment of a case’s rarity exceptionally delicate and subjective.

Role of Reformation:

In Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v State of Maharashtra⁶ the judgment based on the precedent set in Bachan Singh, the Court established that the imposition of a death sentence is permissible only under two conditions. Firstly, the crime must fall within the exceptionally rare category of “rarest of rare.” Secondly, the availability of any unquestionable alternative must be ruled out. The Court further asserted that opting for life imprisonment becomes futile only when the objective of reformation is deemed unattainable. In such cases, the Court is obligated to present compelling evidence justifying the unsuitability of the convict for any reformatory or rehabilitation program.

Inconsistent Practices and Subjectivity in Capital Sentencing:

 In India, capital sentencing grapples with errors, subjectivity, and arbitrariness, with divergent practices among judges and benches. The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine derived from Bachan Singh has encountered varied interpretations, resulting in sentencing becoming predominantly judge-centric. The inclusion of public opinion in sentencing, as exemplified in Dhananjoy Chaterjee, has diluted Bachan Singh’s framework. It also demonstrates the procedural and normative gaps in the capital sentencing framework in India that have been inherited from the Bachan Singh judgment and have been carried over years.

Conclusion:

As India grapples with the complexities of death penalty jurisprudence, it is crucial to address ambiguities in sentencing frameworks, minimize subjectivity, and strive for fairness in the delivery of justice. The evolution in legislation has paved the way for discussions on the relevance of aggravating and mitigating factors in capital punishment cases. By critically examining past cases and challenges, the legal system can work towards transparency and justice that upholds the principles of the law while safeguarding the rights of individuals facing the gravest penalties. In an effort to reduce errors, the suggestion is to assemble a complete bench of the higher judiciary for death penalty cases, where each judge is mandated to compose an individual judgment. This recommendation aims to augment fairness, stipulating that a death sentence can only be affirmed if there is unanimity among all individual judgments.

1. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, S. 354(3). ↩︎
2. (1980) 2 SCC 684. ↩︎
3. (1983) 3 SCC 470.
   ↩︎
4. (1994) 2 SCC 220. ↩︎
5. (2010) 14 SCC 546. ↩︎
6. (2009) 6 SCC 498. ↩︎