Wed Feb 19 03:00:00 UTC 2025: ## Conflicting Death Penalty Verdicts Highlight Ambiguity in India’s “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine

**New Delhi, February 19, 2025** – Two recent murder cases in India have resulted in starkly contrasting verdicts, reigniting debate over the country’s ambiguous “rarest of rare” doctrine for applying the death penalty. One case, involving the rape and murder of a postgraduate doctor in Kolkata, resulted in a life imprisonment sentence, while another, the poisoning murder of a Kerala student, resulted in a death sentence. This disparity underscores the ongoing inconsistencies in judicial interpretation of this crucial legal principle.

The January 2025 sentencing of Sanjay Roy, convicted for the rape and murder of the Kolkata doctor, highlighted the lack of a clear definition for “rarest of rare” crimes. The judge deemed the crime not to fit this category, leading to a life sentence. In contrast, Greeshma, convicted of poisoning her partner in Kerala, received the death penalty, classified as a “rarest of rare” case.

The absence of a statutory definition for the “rarest of rare” doctrine dates back to 1972, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment but offered no clear guidelines for its application. While the 1980 *Bachan Singh* case established the doctrine, it failed to elaborate on its meaning, leading to ongoing judicial discretion. The 1983 *Machhi Singh* case attempted to provide a framework, outlining criteria such as the brutality of the crime, the motive, and the victim’s vulnerability, but the ambiguity persists.

Further complicating the issue, the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory death penalty provision in 1983, leaving all murder cases under the purview of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, allowing for both death and life imprisonment. In 2022, the Supreme Court referred the question of ensuring meaningful hearings on mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases to a Constitution Bench, suggesting a potential move towards a more uniform approach.

Legal experts continue to express concern over the inconsistent application of the death penalty, emphasizing the need for a clear, universally accepted definition of “rarest of rare” to ensure fairness and transparency in the Indian judicial system. The recent contrasting verdicts underscore the urgent need for clarification and reform in this area.

Read More