ABSTRACT
The recent cases committed especially against women makes one ponder why the rarest of rare crimes have become so common. With the growing rate of crime these days, and the media trial of such cases even before these go to courts, especially of the elite classes, makes one think of what constitutes the ‘rarest of rare’ crimes. Is it that the media makes the rarest of rare crimes common by flashing the news all day impacting the society’s thought process. Going through several judgments, a patriarchal approach can be discovered in this category. The paper highlights how factors like the gender of the offender, social class, media attention and judicial subjectivity can heavily influence decisions.
KEYWORDS
Rarest of rare, Judicial Subjectivity, Media Trial, Juvenile Justice, Gender Bias, Capital Punishment in India
INTRODUCTION
The Doctrine of the “Rarest of Rare” was established in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. Even though the Court had defined the doctrine as applicable in the most heinous crimes, the scope was not defined. Then, in the case of Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court tried to set a criteria for the assessment of a crime falling in the “Rarest of Rare.” In 2008, the Court in the case Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar held that “a death sentence would be awarded only, when a murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.” The Jury gave some conditions to announce a death sentence, which are:
- Method of murder,
- Reason for murder, and
- Consequences of murder.
- Socially repugnant or antisocial nature of the crime
- Dimensions of the crime and the murder victim’s personality.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research adopts a doctrinal approach by analyzing statutes, landmark judgments, and recent cases have been referred to trace the evolution of the “rarest of rare” doctrine. Scholarly articles, government reports, and reputable news sources have been referenced.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
David T Johnson clearly describes the “Rarest of the Rare” approach in India as a “Lethal Lottery”. He quotes the study which was published in 2008 by Amnesty International which found that “India’s Supreme Court acquitted the accused in 175 out of 728 capital cases- an admission of error for one condemned in every four- and the same study concluded that the country’s capital process is badly infected with bias and arbitrariness. Subsequently, one panel of the Supreme Court even endorsed the report’s ‘lethal lottery’ language.”
Shreshth Bhatnagar in her article brings attention to the drawback of the doctrine brought up by Justice P.N. Bhagvati and others. They focused on the “uncertainty and vagueness surrounding the interpretation and implementation of this concept. He thought that in interpreting the doctrine and imposing the death sentence, subjectivity and personal prejudices would be crucial factors, leading to a situation in which people would be permitted to live or die based on the judicial perspective.”
Rajkumari in her article “The Doctrine of Rarest of Rare: A Critical Analysis” focuses on the fact that statutory definition of the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’ does not exist. “It depends upon facts and circumstances of a particular case, brutality of the crime, conduct of the offender, previous history of his/her involvement in crime and chances of improving and combining him/her into the death penalty has always been a disputable issue all over the world. However, there cannot be any dispute as to the fact that the global tendency is towards the abolition of extreme penalties. But Indian law still keeps on capital punishment for a number of offences.”
Vimal Kumar in his article ‘Rarest of the Rare’ brings focus on why capital punishment awarded by the judiciary is not an option, rather it is done mandatorily. “ These are those cases which are so serious and heinous that any other punishment is not considered as justified. After independence in Indian judicial history, there are various cases in which capital punishment was awarded and executed. All those matters were justified for execution of capital punishment. Rape cases and wage war against the state are such offences.” He also focuses on India being a welfare state and Article 21 enshrined in the Constitution guarantees Right to Life and Personal Liberty to all people. But he proposes that the exception lies within the article which allows that a person can be deprived of the right to life ‘by the procedure established by the law.’
METHOD
In order to assess the rarest of rare doctrine in India and the social ramifications of the legal precedents, it is more important to consider the larger aspect of the mindset that considers a crime as “Rarest of Rare.” The following aspects will help in understanding the doctrine of the rarest of rare:
- Patriarchal understanding of the doctrine
The doctrine of Rarest of Rare as applied in our Courts seems to have a patriarchal connotation attached to it. Some cases, few of which are listed below, seem to have the judges subjectivity in choosing whether the crime could be categorized in the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine. Most often, the judges are influenced if the criminal is of a particular gender as it is difficult to accept the crime within the same parameters.
The infamous Rape and Murder case in Kolkata’s R.G. Kar Medical College & Hospital occurred on 9 August 2022. In the trial by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, the accused have been punished with life imprisonment. Whereas, in the Sharon Murder Case, in which his girlfriend poisoned Sharon which led to his death, the Additional Sessions Court imposed the death penalty and classified it as one of the ‘rarest of rare’ cases.
In the case, Bulandshahr Gang-Rape Case, the victim was a minor, thus, increasing the heinousness of the crime. “They kidnapped the victim and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The accused persons then strangled her to death and dumped her body in a drain. The Allahabad High Court could not find the grounds to interpret this case under the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’. The Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for a fixed term of 25 years without any remission as the Trial Court has not recorded any finding as to how the present case is the rarest of the rare case even though the accused has committed the gravest offence.”
Moreover, the Shraddha Walkar Case in which the victim was cut into 35 pieces after her death, is still under trial, even though the offence was extremely gruesome and rare.
Would it be considered as a ‘rarest of rare’ case?
Even in the acid attack case of State of Maharashtra v. Ankur Narayanlal Panwar, the Bombay High Court changed the death sentence to life imprisonment, not considering it as the rarest of rare case, even though the pain of the dead made it heinous.
Courts sometimes use patriarchal language or moral assumptions to justify the shock to conscience required for the rarest of rare, creating gendered disparities in sentencing rationale.
- Privilege or Punishment: Rich and Powerful
“In the case The State vs. Sushil Sharma, famously called the Tandoor Murder Case, the accused were held guilty and the High Court justified the death penalty imposed by categorizing the heinous crime as a ‘rarest of rare’ case. But, the gruesome murder, then chopping the body and finally lighting the body in a tandoor, was in fact, not heinous enough for the Supreme Court to establish this crime as a rarest of rare case. The Supreme Court said ‘Undoubtedly the offence is brutal but the brutality alone would not justify the death sentence in this case.”
In another case Kuljeet Singh v. Union of India, the Ranga Billa Case, the accused were held guilty of kidnapping and murdering two children. They were also accused of raping one of them. Since they did not belong to an influential background or had a rich family, they were held guilty and were awarded death sentences.
When in affluent offender cases, courts avoid invoking the rarest of rare doctrine, it raises questions about social equity in justice.
- Juvenile Committing Heinous Crimes
In the Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi famously called the Nirbhaya Rape Case, while pronouncing the judgements the Court throughout referred the accused party as the ‘accused and the juvenile’ which brought out the discrepancy in the judicial system, focusing on how juveniles, even if they are only some months below the age of majority, can go scot free even after committing the most heinous crimes which are considered ‘Rarest of Rare’ in an adult trial. The juvenile was treated as a juvenile and not an accused even when the proceedings were going on, even though he was a major then. It is important to mention that the minor was equally responsible for the heinous crime of rape and murder of the victim, yet, shielded under the Juvenile Justice Act.
“A police study found that between January 2022 and May 2024, 259 minors were involved in incidents of murder, attempted murder, rape, robbery, and extortion.” Perhaps, the juvenile not being punished or tried like adults even in the gruesome crimes (like Nirbhaya) has led to an increase in the crimes committed by them.
In February 2025, three crimes were reported which were committed by teenagers. “Five minor boys got drunk and committed two murders and robberies within two hours in East Delhi. Within 24 hours of that, three juveniles fatally stabbed a man in north Delhi only because he asked them for directions. In the third incident in the same week, a man was crucially wounded due to stabbing in South Delhi.”
The Pune Porsche Case revolves around “the death of two IT professionals in early morning. They were travelling on a two-wheeler when they were hit by a Porsche driven by an allegedly intoxicated minor, who was the son of a real estate tycoon. The minor was charged with several offences, the major one being Section 304 of IPC, which is Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder. Soon after the incident, the minor was given bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act provided that he writes a 300-word essay, works with the traffic police for 15 days, undergoes treatment for alcohol abuse, and seeks psychiatric counselling.” Even after such a crime, where the juvenile was drinking and driving which caused the death of two people, the teenager was released with a punishment to write just an essay regarding his actions. Would the same punishment be given to another person who was not as influential as him or was an adult? The aftermath of Nirbhaya’s juvenile let off does impact the society’s thought process where juveniles get into murderous acts without a thought hoping to go scot free-no matter what?
- Media Trial: Normalizing Crimes
The media has an essential role to play in projecting the crimes committed. Media trials have both positive and negative impacts. In Nirbhaya Rape case, Jessica Lal Murder Case, Aarushi Murder Case, the media trial and public hue and cry led to the trials of the accused. On the other hand, the case of Shraddha Walkar and its sensationalization and over exposure gradually normalizes the heinous acts and influences some minds for committing similar heinous crimes.
In the Priyadarshini Mattoo Case, the accused was charged with rape and murder of the victim. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the perpetrator, Santosh Singh. “This was followed by huge public protests, which drew the attention of the media… In spite of several compelling evidences, Singh was able to walk out of jail as a free man without really being found guilty of a single crime. Investigative reporting was employed by the media to uncover the flaws in the murder case, and it was quickly brought to the public’s attention as to how justice was denied to Priyadarshini Mattoo. This sparked a major outcry from the public, who demanded that the case be reviewed… The population was sick of hearing about the judiciary’s failures and endemic corruption, and it was ready for a bold change. The case was reopened as a result of the media’s heavy scrutiny, and the CBI was forced to admit that it needs to step up its game in order to become more efficient in performing their duties. Finally, on October 17, 2006, the Delhi High Court found Santosh Singh guilty of rape and murder under sections 376 and 302 of the IPC, and sentenced him to death. The Court reached its decision based on a slew of compelling evidence.” In cases like these, media trials proved to be effective and act as a tool of justice.
Even in the Puna Porsche Case, after the accused was released on bail, it led to a huge public commotion. “Due to the public outroar, his bail was revoked, and he was detained in an observational home. Soon, the case became sensational with news channels covering it 24×7. One of the main reasons for this was the alleged involvement of money and influence in the case. It is in the aftermath of this that the Pune police filed an application to try him as an adult.”
In May 2022, Shraddha Walkar was murdered by her live-in partner Aaftab Amin Poonawal. He then chopped the body into 35 pieces, stuffed it in a fridge and then the body parts were thrown in the forests of Delhi’s Mehrauli over a period of time. In February 2023, a similar case had occurred in which a woman’s body was found stuffed in a dhaba freezer in Delhi’s Najafgarh area.
After the reporting on the Shraddha Walkar Case, such heinous crimes have been committed in two more states. The Case in Uttar Pradesh was committed against Aradhana Prajapati, her boyfriend, Prince Yadav, took her on the pretext of marriage to a farm and strangled her to death. Prince, along with his cousin Sarvesh, cut her body into six pieces. They packed the parts in a plastic bag and dumped it into a well outside the village. In the West Bengal, Baruipur Murder Case, the son pushed his father in a heated argument, who hit his head and fell unconscious. The wife and the son then cut the body into six pieces and then scattered the body parts across Baruipur. Does the media spread these ideas to every nook and corner, which normalizes the idea of chopping a body. People who committed murder, tried to ‘copycat’ the same idea to escape the punishment of a crime. The crime of murder is grave but not rarest of rare, but chopping a body to dispose of it off crosses all boundaries of humanity and sanity.
The media has now drawn all attention to the Meerut Drum Cement and the Meghalaya Honeymoon Murder Cases leading to public uprising. These cases have specially gained attention as the crimes have been committed by women and therefore are rare, gaining the attention of the media and public.
- Subjective Judiciary
All the cases that have been referred to earlier on in this paper bring the question of what constitutes the ‘rarest of rare’ crime and on what parameters is a case decided in this category?
In the Sharon Murder Case,the crime was considered to fall in the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’. “The judgment emphasized the crime’s extreme brutality, betrayal, and premeditated execution, stating that Greeshma’s actions reflected complete depravity and inhuman intent. This case highlights the judiciary’s application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine, taking into account factors such as preplanning, the victim-offender relationship, and the crime’s heinous nature in deciding the appropriateness of the death penalty.” Since no particular statutes or guidelines are there which can act as a framework to ensure that all cases get past the heinousness of crime and become the ‘rarest of rare’ crime; it becomes the judiciary’s interpretation which is subjective.
The Court in the Nirbhaya Case acknowledged the brutality and inhuman nature of the gang rape, torture and murder of the victim. It had a deep impact on the society which led to public outrage. Life imprisonment was seen as insufficient as a punishment for the crime and therefore, the accused were given death sentence. Whereas, in the case of Bulandshahr Gang-Rape Case, even when the victim was just a minor, the Court did not hold the accused guilty in a crime which was ‘rarest of rare’. They gave the accused only a sentence of life imprisonment for a fixed term of only 25 years, bringing out the subjective angle.
In the Billa Ranga Case, the accused were held guilty in the ‘rarest of rare’ crime and were awarded the death penalty. They were liable for kidnapping and murdering two children and even raping the girl. If this case of kidnapping, raping and murder of a child was considered ‘rarest of rare’ in 1982, what changed that the current Bulandshahr Gang-Rape Case of the minor was not deemed fit to fall under the category of the ‘rarest of rare’.
This differential treatment possibly could be relegated to how the judges perceive the criteria of rarest of rare. Since, no formal statute is provided, it is left to the discretion of the judges whether a case falls under the category of the ‘rarest of rare’.
SUGGESTIONS
Few amendments could be made to ensure that the judicial system is no more redundant and becomes fully efficient. Subjective interpretation of crimes impact society’s justice equity. There has to be a change in the judicial structure of the country especially in the rarest of rare crimes such that the message in society is clear and univocal.
- Standard Rule
A statute by the legislative or some guidelines or policy should be framed by setting up a committee of esteemed retired judges who have been part of the cases which were declared as ‘rarest of rare’. This committee could help in understanding the various aspects and question the others to know what could constitute a ‘rarest of rare’ crime. These guidelines should define what is ‘rarest of rare’, what crime falls under the category and what punishment deems fit for such a crime.
- Death Penalty should not be delayed once announced
It was observed in the case of Triveniben v. State of Gujarat, the delay in execution could lead to the punishment being reduced to life imprisonment. So, the Courts should ensure that the person is hanged to death in a reasonable amount of time.
- Right to Mercy Petition
There should be a strict time limit to apply for the mercy petition and if it is not done within the time period, the right to mercy petition should be revoked.
- Retribution and Deterrence
The Indian Judicial System works on the principle of deterrence rather than retribution. The Courts need to revamp the judiciary system in order to put retribution into focus as well. The crime committed needs to have a proportionate punishment to inculcate fear in the minds of the potential offenders.
- Transparency in High-Profile Cases
Corruption is a major reason for the lack of trust and justice in the judicial system. When dealing with high-profile cases, there should be a great deal of transparency. This would ensure a smooth and more acceptable trial by the public, which would ensure that the public puts faith in the system.
- Applicability of the Precedents set for the Juvenile
In the Nirbhaya case, the Court laid down that if a juvenile commits a heinous crime, he would be tried as an adult. This term has not been defined anywhere. A clear definition of a heinous crime where a juvenile could be treated as an adult should be made clear.
CONCLUSION
The doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’ was introduced to be used as a safeguard in the most heinous crimes. Its application has become inconsistent and subject to subjectivity. What might be considered as ‘rarest of rare’ for one, might not be the same for two different judges. The paper focused on the role of gender, social class and media in deciding the cases. This also talks about the leniency shown towards juvenile offenders and powerful individuals, who seem to escape the route of justice. The media should not flash detailed execution of gory crimes, rather report crime without sensationalism.
To restore public faith in the system, India needs to have a standard and structured approach. The focus should be expanded from deterrence to retribution, pronouncing proportionate punishment for the crime committed. Transparency needs to be increased especially in the high-profile cases and juvenile laws need to be stricter for heinous crimes. Life should be measured equally for all.
This would ensure greater public support and faith in the trial system.