Source: The Indian Express 

Introduction 

Kolkata Sealdah Sessions Court’s Sessions Judge Anirban Das convicted the sole accused of Kolkata Rape Case also known as R G Kar Medical College Rape Murder case and sentenced him to life imprisonment after a trial that lasted over five months, after the CBI had submitted a charge sheet against the accused. This case provides mitigating and aggravating circumstances that courts must consider when deciding between life imprisonment and capital punishment. The understanding of these circumstances has evolved through various Supreme Court decisions, establishing guidelines for the rarest of rare cases when the death penalty can be imposed in India's judicial system. 

What is the 'Rarest of Rare' Test and How is it Applied? 

• Established by the Supreme Court in the landmark Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab case (1980). 
• Death penalty should be imposed only when the alternative of life imprisonment is "unquestionably foreclosed." 
• The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is no possibility of reformation or rehabilitation. 
• Courts must weigh both aggravating circumstances (related to the crime) and mitigating circumstances (related to the criminal). 
• A separate sentencing hearing must be conducted after conviction. 
• The test requires consideration of the exceptional nature of the case that sets it apart from other murder cases. 
• The collective conscience of society should be so shocked that it expects the judiciary to impose death penalty. 
• The court must provide clear evidence why the convict is not fit for any reformatory schemes. 
• The burden lies on the state to prove that death penalty is the only suitable punishment. 

How was the Death Penalty Administered Before the Bachan Singh Case? 

• The death penalty was awarded more frequently before Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab case (1980). 
• There was no established doctrine of "rarest of rare" cases. 
• Courts had broader discretion in imposing capital punishment. 
• No mandatory requirement to consider mitigating circumstances. 

How did the Death Penalty Evolve After the Bachan Singh Case? 

• Age became a significant mitigating factor, especially for accused under 30 years, as seen in cases like Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) and Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan (2011). 
• The Law Commission's 262nd Report (2015) noted inconsistency in how age was considered as a mitigating factor, making sentencing "judge-centric." 
• In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the Supreme Court introduced the "collective conscience" doctrine, allowing death penalty when society's conscience is deeply shocked. 
• Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. v. State of Maharashtra (2013) established that courts should compare similar cases before determining punishment to avoid subjective application of "rarest of rare" doctrine. 
• Santosh Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) mandated clear evidence showing why a convict is unfit for reformation or rehabilitation. 
• Courts must now conduct a separate sentencing trial after conviction, though the timing of this hearing has varied in different cases. 
• Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra (2020) established that lack of a meaningful sentencing hearing could be grounds for commuting death sentence to life imprisonment. 
• The Supreme Court in 2022 raised concerns about same-day sentencing hearings, noting they may not satisfy the requirement of meaningful and effective hearing. 
• Recent focus has shifted to ensuring mitigating circumstances get equal consideration as aggravating ones, as mitigating factors are only presented after conviction. 
• The Law Commission Report highlighted that post-Machhi Singh decisions often focused more on crime circumstances rather than criminal's reformation potential. 
• The evolution has led to increased on reformation possibilities and thorough consideration of mitigating circumstances before awarding death penalty. 
• Courts now require stronger justification for imposing death penalty, with the burden of proof lying heavily on the prosecution to show why life imprisonment is inadequate. 

What Types of Crimes and Victim-Related Circumstances Qualify Under the 'Rarest of Rare' Doctrine? 

• Nature of Crime: 
  • Pre-planned Murder: When the crime shows evidence of calculated planning and premeditation. 
  • Extreme Brutality: Cases involving exceptionally cruel or brutal methods of killing. 
  • Exceptional Depravity: When the manner of crime shows unusual wickedness or perversion. 
  • Multiple Murders: Cases involving the killing of more than one person. 
• Victim-Related Circumstances: 
  • Public Servant Victims: Murder of police officers, armed forces personnel, or other public servants. 
  • On-Duty Murders: Killing of officials while they are performing their official duties. 
  • Revenge Killings: Murder of public servants in retaliation for their lawful actions while discharging duty. 

What is Mitigating Circumstance? 

• Primary Mitigating Circumstances: 
  • Mental/Emotional State: Whether the accused was experiencing extreme mental or emotional disturbance during the offense. 
  • Age Factor: Very young or very old age of the accused is considered for leniency. 
  • Societal Threat Assessment: Evaluation of whether the accused poses an ongoing threat to society. 
  • Reformation Potential: Assessment of the possibility of rehabilitating and reforming the accused. 
  • External Influence: If the accused committed the crime under someone else's direction. 
  • Moral Justification: If the accused believed their actions had moral grounds. 
  • Mental Capacity: Whether the accused was mentally capable of understanding the criminality of their actions. 

What are the Recent Developments in the RG Kar Medical College Rape and Murder Case? 

• The case involved the rape and murder of a doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in West Bengal. 
• The accused, (35 years old), was convicted of the crime. 
• The case triggered several weeks of protests and strikes by doctors in West Bengal. 
• West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had demanded death penalty for the murderer. 
• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) strongly argued for the death penalty in the case. 
• Despite public demands and CBI's arguments, a sessions court in Kolkata sentenced the accused to life imprisonment on Monday (January 21, 2025). 
• The verdict came after considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances as per the "rarest of rare" doctrine. 
• The case significantly impacted West Bengal, demonstrating the tension between public demands for severe punishment and judicial consideration of mitigating factors. 

Conclusion 

The RG Kar case exemplifies how Indian courts apply the "rarest of rare" doctrine in practice. Despite the brutal nature of the crime and public demand for capital punishment, the court's consideration of mitigating factors led to life imprisonment instead of death penalty. This demonstrates the evolution of India's judicial approach to death penalty cases, reformation over retribution and requiring thorough consideration of both aggravating and mitigating circumstance.