The “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine:

A Analysis of its application in

Abstract

The article examine the “rarest of rare” Doctrine, a judicially evolved principle central to death
penalty jurisprudence. The doctrine tends to limit the imposition of the death sentence to only the
most exceptional cases where the crime is heinous and the circumstances so intense that the no other
punishment would be enough. The doctrine ensures that the capital punishment is used only in the
most deserving cases. The application of the doctrine has been facing challenges and inconsistency.
This article indulge into the evolution of the “Rarest of rare” Doctrine and an analysis of its
application in cases. It also examines the challenges that disturb it’s implementation.

Introduction

The death penalty has been a subject of intense debate in India while India has not abolished capital
punishment. The capital punishment offends article 19 of the constitution. The “Rarest of rare”
doctrine was emerged from the land mark case of Bachan singh V State of Punjab (1980).It serves as
the guiding principle for determining when the death penalty should be imposed. This Doctrine
imposes that the capital punishment should be reserved only for the exceptional cases where the crime
committed is so heinous that the circumstances is so terrible that it shocks the conscience of society
and where lifetime imprisonment and any other punishment is inadequate

*Bachan Singh V State of Punjab 1960 2 SCC 684

The “Rarest of rare” Doctrine is a legal principles in India that guides judges in deciding whether to
impose the death penalty .The doctrine means that the capital punishment should only be used in the
most extreme and exceptional cases

Evolution of the Doctrine:” Rarest of rare”

The emergence of the Doctrine was due to series of judicial discretion aimed at narrowing the scope of
death sentence in India. In Rajendra prasad V State of U.P Justice Krishna iyyer of the supreme court
in his judgement referred to the social justice projected by article 38, the concept of reasonablness in
Article 19 and non- arbitariness in Article 14. This complex validates death penalty in limited class of
cases. This case leaned towards making the death penalty a rarest of rare punishment ,which was
later reinforced in bachan singh V state of punjab

In Bachan Singh V State of Punjab upholding the Constitutionality of the death penalty laid down the
“Rarest of rare” Doctrine as means of identifying the exceptional cases where capital punishment
would be imposed. Section 302, IPC offends Article 19 of constitution as the right to live is basic to the
enjoyment of all six freedom guaranteed in clauses (a) to (e) and (g) of article 19(1).The court stated
that life imprisonment is the rule and the death penalty id an exception. Special reasons necessary for
imposing death sentence must relate not to the crime as such but to the criminal

Application of the Doctrine

The “Rarest of rare” Doctrine has been criticised for its ambiguous and subjective interpretation. The
inconsistencies in sentencing death penalty has lead to a struggle in defining what constitutes a “
Rarest of rare” case. While some cases involving extreme brutality, premeditated murder and heinous
crimes against vulnerable individuals have been considered “rarest of rare”, others with similar facts
have not.

Amruta V state of Maharashtra was decided by the supreme court . Amrutha was convicted for
murdering his wife and their six year old daughter.The high court convicted amruta for death
sentence. Upon appeal, the supreme court upheld the death sentence to life imprisonment

 Rajendra prasad V state of U.P 1979 3SCC 646

3
  Amruta V state of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 629

In Amrit singh V state of Punjab, A girl of 2 nd standard was brutally raped. She was died due to
excessive bleeding both the trial court and high court convicted the accused to death sentence under
section 302. Upon appeal, the supreme court reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment stating
that case did not fall under the “Rarest of rare”.

Mukesh & Anr V State for NCT of Delhi & Ors both trial and high court sentence them to death .
Upon appeal, the supreme court also held the convictions and death sentences, Terming the crime is
falling within the “ Rarest of Rare”.

The certain factors to be considered while applying the doctrine include the nature and gravity of the
offence, the manner of its execution, the motive behind the crime, the criminal history of the accused
and the possibility of reformation. These factors are not exhaustive and often require subjective
interpretation leading to disparities in sentencing

Key sections in the Bharatiya nyaya sanhita where the capital penalty can be sentenced

*Section 66 : Rape and injury which causes death or leaves a person in a persistent vegetative state.

*Section70(2): gang rape of a child under 18 years of age

*Section 71: Repeat offences of an individual under section 64, section 65, section 66 or 70

*Section 103(1):murder

*Section103(2): Mob lynching

*Section 104: Murder by a prisoner serving life sentence

*Section 147: Waging war against the government of india

*Section160: Abetment of mutiny

 Amrit singh V State of Punjab 2006 (12) SCC 79

4
*Section 230(2): Giving or fabricating false evidence that result in a capital penalty of an innocent
person

*Section 310(3): Murder while committing dacoity

Challenges and criticisms

The “Rarest of rare” Doctrine has faced numerous challenges and criticism. The main concern is the
lack of clear objective criteria for determining a “ Rarest of rare” case . This leaves a room for judicial
discretion. Which can be influenced by personal and social pressures. The Doctrine has not been
effective in reducing the death sentenced in India. The lower courts frequently imposes death sentence
later removed by the supreme court in appeal. The focus on the intensity of crime often overshadows
the mitigating factors related to accused mental state, socioeconomic background, history of the
accused and chance of reformation. This can lead to disproportionate sentencing. In recent years,
There have been some positive developments in the application of the rarest of rare doctrine. Due to
the development of media and technology. There is also a debate about the abolition of the death
penalty in India. While the death penalty remains a part of the legal framework

Conclusion

The “Rarest of rare” Doctrine was intended to be a safeguard against the arbitary use of the death
sentence. The doctrine has faced numerous challenges in its application. The lack of clear objective
criteria. The subjective nature of judicial interpretations has led to inconsistencies in death sentencing.
The court played a crucial role in refining the doctrine by ensuring that it is applied fairly. There is
need for a broader social debate over the morality of the death sentence. The Rarest of rare remains a
complex and evolving principle. Ultimately a more objective and consistent application of the doctrine
will be necessary To ensure that justice is truly served in the most extreme cases

5
References

 J.N Pandey, Constitutional law of India ( central law agency, Allahabad, 58th edition, 2021)
 S N Mishra, Indian Penal Code ( central law agency, Allahabad, 23rd edition,2023)
 M.P Jain, Indian constitutional law ( LexisNexis, Haryana, 3rd edition, 2024)
 Law Commission of India, “262nd report on the death penalty, 2015”
 Rarest of rare doc types : judgements, available at https://indiankannon.org.
 The Doctrine of Rarest of the rare, available at https://www.legalserviceindia.com
 Death penalty in Bharatiya nyaya sanhita, available at https://legalserviceindia.com