UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

CASE STUDY OF

ANSHAD VS STATE OF KARNATAKA 1994 SCC (4) 381,

JT 1994 (3) 324
A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED AS A PART OF CIRRICULUM OF
B.COM LL.B.(Hons.) IN THE SUBJECT OF
‘THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973’

SUBMITTED TO:Prof.(Dr.) SANGITA SUBMITTED BY :

BHALLA Pareena Singh (121/18)
Mr. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Vivek Kumar Bansal (154/18)
Dr. NANCY SHARMA Darika Sikka (238/18)
(FACULTY OF LAW) Saloni (240/18)
UILS, PANJAB UNIVERSITY
 Table of Contents

S.No. Particulars Page No.

1. Acknowledgments 2
2. Introduction 3
3. Anshadvs State of Karnataka 4-6
4. Arguments 7
5. Judgment 8-15

6. Case Analysis 16
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would like to express our sincere thanks and gratitude to our teachers, Prof. (Dr.) Sangeeta
Bhalla, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and Dr. Nancy Sharma who gave us the opportunity to
study and research on such profound topics of Criminal Law “ ANSHAD VS STATE OF

KARNATAKA 1994 SCC (4) 381, JT 1994 (3) 324”. This assignment has helped us
in understanding all the relevant concepts of law and latest position of law on these subjects.
 INTRODUCTION

Meaning and scope -‘Rarest of Rare’

There is no statutory definition of rarest of rare. In a criminal trial, the nature and gravity of the
crime are taken into consideration for determining a suitable punishment. The Court shall be
deemed to have failed in discharging its duty if proportionate punishment has not been
awarded for those crimes which are committed not only against one particular individual but
can be said to have been committed against the society at large. Therefore, weight age is
given to the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of
the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should “respond to the society’s cry for
justice against the criminal”. That is to say, the existence of such extraordinary grounds
under which the Court has no other resort than to effect a capital punishment for the survival
of the State as well as society.

The principle of ‘rarest of rare’ can be divided into parts:-

i. Aggravating circumstances

ii. Mitigating circumstances

The difference between the two is that in case of aggravating circumstances, the Judge may on
his will impose death sentence but for mitigating circumstances, the Bench shall not award
death penalty under rarest of rare cases. The Judicature of India is under an obligation to
strike a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances on one hand and cry of
the society on the other.

Evolution of Rarest of Rare Doctrine

In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty can be
awarded only in special cases. It constitutes an exceptional punishment which will be
imposed only with special reason and must be properly conferred by the High Court.

The five Judge Bench in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab laid down the caveat of rarest of rare.
Justice R Sarkaria speaking for the majority held that for convicts of murder, the general rule
is life imprisonment of whose death penalty is an exception. An enduring and predominant
concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s
 instrumentality.“That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the
alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.”

Bachan Singh v State of Punjab

Facts of the Case

The appellant Bachan Singh was tried and convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code for the murders of Desa Singh, DurgaBai and VeeranBai by the
Sessions Judge.

The High Court had confirmed his death sentence and dismissed his appeal. In turn, he
appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution
and the question raised in the appeal was, whether the facts of his case were “special reasons”
for awarding him the death sentence as required in Section 354(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

 Issues involved

1. Whether the death penalty provided for the offence of murder in Section 302, Penal Code is
unconstitutional?

2. Whether the sentencing procedure provided in Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973 is
unconstitutional on the ground that it invests the Court with unguided discretion?

3. Whether sec 302 IPC is against Article 21 and 19?

4. Can Supreme Court restrict the area of imposition of death penalty to narrow category of
murders?

Section 354(3) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the
reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons
for such sentence.
 Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code

302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Judgement

The Supreme Court with 4:1 majority dismissed the challenges pertaining to the
constitutionality of Sec 302 of IPC and 354(3) of CrPC. The court said that the six
fundamental rights guaranteed under Art 19(1) are not absolute rights. These rights are
subjected to inherent restraints stemming from the reciprocal obligation of one member of
civil society to so use his rights as not to infringe or injure similar rights of another. It was
held that Section 302 is not violative both Art 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

It was further held that Section 354 (3) of CrPC was not unconstitutional and that the
expression “special reason” in the section means “exceptional reasons” founded in the
exceptionally grave circumstances of a particular case relating to the crime as well as the
criminal.

Supreme Court of India laid down the ‘rarest of the rare doctrine’ by imposing the limitations
on the death penalty. This case is a landmark judgment given by a five-judge bench of the
Hon’ble SC.

Constitutional validity of Death Penalty

The constitutionality of death sentence was canvassed for the first time before the apex
court in the case of Jagmohan Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh. Section 302 of IPC was
challenged as violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court upheld the
sentence of death as constitutional and held, that even after assuming that right to life is the
foundation stone of the freedom enumerated under Article 19 and that no law can be enacted
which takes away the life of a person unless it is reasonable and in public interest. So, it is
difficult to hold that capital punishment as such was unreasonable or not required in public
interest. If the entire procedure for a criminal trial under the CrPC for arriving at a sentence
of death is valid then the imposition of the death sentence in accordance with the procedure
established by law cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
 Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab laid down the broad outlines of the circumstances
when death sentence should be imposed. Justice Thakkar speaking for the Court held that five
categories of cases may be regarded as rarest of rare cases deserving extreme penalty. They
are:

Firstly: Manner of Commission of murder – When the murder is committed in an

extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation in the community,
for instance, when the house of the victim is set a flame to roast him alive, when the body is
cut to pieces or the victim is subjected to inhuman torture.

Secondly: Motive – When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces

depravity and meanness eg. a hired assassin, a cold blooded murder to inherit property, or
gain control over property of a ward, or a murder committed for betrayal of the motherland.

Thirdly: Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime – where a scheduled

caste or minority community person is murdered in circumstances which arouse: social
wrath; or bride burning for dowry, or for remarriage.

Fourthly: Magnitude of the Crime – Crimes of enormous proportion, like multiple

murders of a family or persons of a particular caste, community or locality.

Fifthly: Personality of victim of murder

The appeals of A4 and A5 are partly allowed and they are acquitted of the offences charged but
convicted for the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to the term of imprisonment
already undergone by them. The conviction of A1, A2 and A3 is altered to the one under
Sections 302/34 IPC. 394/34 IPC and 379/34 IPC

Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code-Dishonestly receiving stolen property.—Whoever

dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the
same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
 The liability under Section 411 arises not only for dishonest “reception” but also for
dishonest “retention”. The difference between the two is that in the former, the person has
received the property dishonestly but may not necessarily retain it dishonestly. However, in
the latter, there is a change in the mind of the person from “honest” to “dishonest” and he
then retains that property dishonestly with himself.

Following are the ingredients that need to be established to prove the guilt of the
accused:

 That the accused had possession of the stolen property.

 That before the accused got the possession of the property, the property was in some other
person’s possession.

 That the accused had knowledge and reason to believe that the property was a stolen one.

 That the accused had intent to deprive the owner of his or her property by keeping or selling
it to another party.

Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.

If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes

hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to
commit such robbery, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 396 in The Indian Penal Code – Dacoity with murder.

If anyone of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits
murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or
1[imprisonment for life], or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.

The ingredients of Section 396 are:

 The offence of dacoity must be committed with the joint act of the accused persons; 

 Murder must be committed in course of the commission of the dacoity.

 If anyone of the five or more persons who are committing robbery commit murder
while committing dacoity then, every one of them will held liable for murder even if some of
them did not participate in committing the murder. Under Section 396 of the IPC, it is not
necessary to prove whether the murder was committed by a single person or it was committed
by all of them. It is also not necessary to prove the common intention. The prosecution is
only required to prove that the murder was committed while committing the dacoity. If the
prosecution successfully proves that the murder was committed while committing dacoity,
then all of the members will be punished under Section 396 of the IPC.

If the offenders are running and while chasing them if one of the dacoits kill someone
then the other members of the gang can not be held guilty under Section 396 of the IPC. In
one of the landmark case laws i.e. Laliya v state of Rajasthan it was observed that whether
the murder is a part of dacoity or not, it totally depends on the circumstances of that time.

In ShyamBehari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the dacoit killed one of the victims, who had caught
the robber’s associate in an attempt to commit dacoit. The robber was convicted under
Section 396 of IPC because any murder committed by the dacoits during their fight would be
treated as murder. 
 CASE STUDY: ANSHAD VS STATE OF KARNATAKA 1994
SCC (4) 381, JT 1994 (3) 324

Citation: 1994 SCC (4) 381, JT 1994 (3)324, 1994 SCALE (2)653
Anshad- Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondents
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bench: Anand, A.S. (J),FaizanUddin (J)

The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence in the High Court and the State also filed
an appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment. The High Court vide its
judgment dated 16-11- 1993, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants but partly allowed
the appeal filed by the State in respect of A-1, A-2 and A-3. Their sentence of life
imprisonment was enhanced to that of death sentence

Backdrop of the case:

1.  A- 1 who is a painter by profession developed acquaintanceship with the deceased Savitri
Devi, a widow aged about 60 years, when he was engaged to paint a name board for a school
which the deceased wanted to open. He had later on also painted a scenery in the portion of
the house occupied by her son PW
2.  school did not function properly it was closed about six months prior to the date of the
occurrence which took place on 21-9-1988. The deceased Savitri Devi requested PW 32 to
find a tenant for the building in which the school was functioning and indicated the rent she
expected as well as the amount of rent to be received in advance. The deceased was living on
the second floor of a three-storeyed building called 'SavitriNiwas' at Kumara Park, west of
Bangalore. There were three tenants living in the basement while the ground floor was vacant
and the first floor was occupied by PW 36 Gopal son of the deceased
3. Savitri Devi deceased was living on the second floor of the house along with Yashoda and
Bhagya two maidservants. Sunil, the second deceased in the case is the grandson of Savitri
Devi, being the son of her daughter Vandana. He was aged about 15 years and had come to
stay with her
4. A- 1 had been introduced to the deceased by PW 32 while A-2 and A-3 were introduced.to
PW 32 by A-1 about one week prior to the occurrence. On coming to know that the school
 building was intended to be let out, A-1 met PW 32 in the house of the deceased and
introduced A-2 and A-3 to the deceased as Cardamom Estate owners of Kerala and told her
that they were interested in striking a deal regarding renting of the school building.

To appreciate the prosecution case, it would be useful to extract the relevant portion of the
evidence:

1. Pw1 submitted Sunil deceased, who was his cousin was seen by him around 7.30 p.m. along
with A- 1 coming down from the second floor. On inquiry, Sunil disclosed that he was going
to drop his friend, namely, A- 1. After a little while A- 1 alone was seen going up to the
second floor. Pw1 was told to inquire from the grandmother as to at what time he would
return. Sanjay therefore went to the main hall and opening the door called out to his
grandmother but there was no response. He then walked up to the second floor
2. He noticed his grandmother lying flat on the floor, at the entrance of the bedroom and a
person standing next to her having a cloth bundle in his hand. He was removing jewellery
from the person of his grandmother and putting it in the bundle. The said person was later on
identified as A-3. Sanjay PW 2 also noticed that A-2 was also standing next to his
grandmother near A-3. He tried to extricate himself from the clutches of A.- 1 but could not
succeed and was dragged by A-1 towards the dining hall and his head was banged against the
showcase. A-1 then pushed PW 2 into the puja room where he found two more persons
standing near the almirah. His effort to escape from the clutches of A- 1 was futile. A- 1
pushed him on to a cot and squeezed his neck. He became unconscious.
3.  he regained consciousness he found that A-1 and the other two persons, later on identified as
A-4 and A-5, were not in the puja room. He came out of the puja room and went into the
dining hall, where he found Sunil deceased lying on the ground. He turned him around and
discovered that Sunil was not breathing but there was bleeding from his nose. He also noticed
some injuries on his neck and that the wrist-watch, a gold chain and the platinum ring were
missing from the person of Sunil. At the same time, he saw his grandmother's maidservant
Yashoda untying the hands of the other maidservant PW 3
4. On receipt of the information from the police control room, Sub-Inspector Lav Kumar PW 41
reached the spot. Investigation was done and The witness (PW 2) was then sent out and the
participants in the identification parade were made to change their clothes and stand at
different places. PW 2 was once again called in and this time again he correctly identified A-
2 to A-5 as the assailants. He also identified the missing articles after the same had been
recovered by the police from A- 1 to A-5 during the investigation.
These conclude the facts of the case so provided but if reference is made to the arguments
made by the counsels of appellants, some other evidence or lack of it thereof also comes
to light.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

1. Learned counsel for the appellants divided the case into two groups. The first group consists
of A- 1, A-2 and A-3 while the second group consists of A-4 and A-5.
2. It was duly submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the case against A-4 and A-5
beyond any reasonable doubt. The names of A-4 and A-5 do not find any mention in the FIR
and PW 3, PW 5 had not given this version either in her police statement or in her statement
recorded during the inquest proceedings. Thus, circumstance was held not established in the
case.
3. It was also stated that at the trial proceedings, PW 2 as well as PW 3 attempted to make
definite improvements over their earlier statements when they tried to implicate A-4 and A-5
also in the crime by putting up a new story.
4.  Moreover, the prosecution could not establish any connection whatsoever between A-4, A-5
with the other accused A-1 to A-3 by leading any evidence at all.
5. The only circumstance which the prosecution has been able to prove against A-4 and A-5 is
the recovery of certain articles belonging to the deceased from their possession.
6. The counsel duly accepted that the two recoveries referred to above were made from A-4 and
A-5 and that those articles belonged to the deceased. Thus, the only circumstance which can
be said to have been established against A-4 and A-5 is that they were found in possession of
a wrist-watch and a gold ring belonging to the deceased.
7. Stating it not sufficient material to hold them guilty of being participants in the crime of
murder. A-4 and A-5 can only be held liable for being in possession of stolen property and,
thus, guilty of an offence under Section 411 IPC.

ARGUMENTS OF BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

1. The prosecution case was brought out and relied on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
including the injured witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 whose testimony with regard to the
 involvement of A- 1 to A- 3 in the crime remained totally unshaken during the cross-
examination.
2. Other evidence led by the prosecution including the manner in which A-1 falsely introduced
A-2 and A-3 to the deceased and how taking advantage of the confidence he had built up with
her, he not only secured his entry but also the entry of A-2 and A-3 into her house and gave
their false introduction to her proved in the case beyond every reasonable doubt.
3. the prosecution also presented evidence to show that A-1 to A-3 had disposed of some of the
articles removed from the house of the deceased and got converted some others into different
ornaments from the two goldsmiths produced as witnesses in the case.
4. The medical evidence, the evidence of the fingerprint expert and the evidence of recovery of
the property belonging to the deceased directly and positively connected A-1, A-2 and A-3
with the crime.

JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT

With the acquittal of A4 and A5, the conviction of A1, A2 and A3 for an offence under Section
396 IPC (Dacoity with murder) cannot stand because the number of accused would in that
case be less than five. However, the evidence on the record does show that all the three
accused A1, A2 and A3 are responsible for the murder of Savitri Devi and Sunil as also for
committing robbery and theft of the articles belonging to the deceased in the manner
suggested by the prosecution. No challenge to the recovery of the ornaments and other
articles was made and rightly so, in the face of the cogent, reliable and positive evidence
produced by the prosecution. The appellants A1 to A3 are convicted for an offence under
Section 302/34 IPC read with Sections 394/34 and 379/34 IPC.

Supreme Court on the sentence hearing by the Sessions Court-

1. The learned Sessions Judge dealt with the question of sentence in a cryptic manner and after
pronouncing the order of conviction on 8th May 1992 itself, on the same day by a one
paragraph order dealt with the question of sentence.
2. The object for which Section 235(2) Cr. P.C. was brought on the statute book appears to have
been completely ignored by him. the manner in which he decided the question of imposition
of sentence is disapproved by the Supreme court.

Supreme Court on the sentence hearing by the High Court-

1. The Supreme Court had perused the reasons given by the High Court for awarding the
sentence of death. Apart from referring to some of the "aggravating circumstances" like the
betrayal of confidence of the deceased by A1 and murder for committing robbery on a
helpless widow, the High Court only referred to some of the judgments of the SC and then
almost abruptly came to the conclusion that the sentence of death was called for in the instant
case. It was noticed that the High Court did not take into account any of the mitigating
circumstances at all.

Ratio Decidendi –
1. It was held that courts are expected to exhibit sensitiveness in the matter of award of sentence
particularly, the sentence of death because life once lost cannot be brought back. The
Supreme Court has in cases more than one emphasised that for determining the proper
sentence in a case like this while the court should take into account the aggravating
circumstances it should not over look or ignore the mitigating circumstances. The manner in
which the crime was committed, the weapons used and the brutality or the lack of it are some
of the considerations which must be present to the mind of the court.
2. Of course, the High Court has the power and jurisdiction to enhance the sentence of life
imprisonment to death but that power has to be sparingly exercised, in "rarest of the rare
cases" for 'special reasons' to be recorded. The courts must be alive to the legislative
changes introduced in 1973 through Section 354(3) Cr. P.C.
3. Death sentence, being an exception to the general rule, should be awarded in the "rarest of
the rare cases" for "special reasons' to be recorded after balancing the aggravating and the
mitigating circumstances, in the facts and circumstances of a given case. The number of
persons murdered is a consideration but that is not theonly consideration for imposing death
penalty unless the case falls in the category of "rarest of the rare cases". The courts must keep
in view the nature of the crime, the brutality with which it was executed, the antecedents of
the criminal, the weapons used etc. It is neither possible nor desirable to catalogue all such
factors and they depend upon case to case.
Some of the mitigating circumstances which have been pointed out by learned counsel for the
appellants and of which notice was not taken by the High Court are:

a) that A1 to A3 had gone to the house of the deceased empty handed and did not even pick up
any weapon like knife etc. from the house of the deceased nor used any such weapon while
committing the murder of the two deceased;

b) that they did not do away with the lives of PW2 and PW3, the only two eye witnesses and
thereby screen the offence completely;

c) that there is nothing on the record to show that they acted in an exceptionally brutal or cruel
manner while committing murder. The medical evidence shows only abrasions and scratches
on the body of the deceased caused by nails frictions;
d) there is nothing on the record to show as to which out of the three appellants strangulated
which of the two deceased;

e) the manner in which the crime was committed and the jewellery removed from the person of
the deceased would also show that A1 to A3 took off the jewellery from the person of the
deceased by removing the same rather than tore it off from their bodies causing any injuries
to the deceased;

The court held that the object of the appellants A1 to A3 was to commit theft/ robbery in the
house of the deceased but finding the deceased there and some resistance and being surprised
by the entry of Sunil they tried to drag and gag her as well as her grandson, Sunil, when he
appeared on the spot and strangulated them by the use of towels, which unfortunately proved
fatal. From the statement of PW2 it appears that deceased Savitri Devi died after the
appellants had left and therefore it is possible to say that the appellants may have attempted
only to render her unconscious for decamping with the jewellery and other articles. The
reasons given by the High Court to enhance the sentence of life imprisonment to death,
without taking into account all circumstances and balancing the aggravating and the
mitigating circumstances, in our opinion, are neither 'special reasons' nor otherwise adequate
and sufficient to impose the sentence of death on either of the three convicts A1 to A3. In
taking this view the court was also influenced by the view expressed by a three Judges' Bench
of this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab. The circumstances noticed above, coupled
with the fact that the offence under Section 396 IPC has not been made out, pushed the court
to impose the sentence of life imprisonment on A1, A2 and A3 for the offence under
Section 302/34 IPC and to set aside the sentence of death. The court also sentence them
each to suffer imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 394/34
IPC and while convicting them for the offence under Section 379/34 IPC the court did not
pass any separate sentence of imprisonment on them. The substantive sentences shall run
concurrently.

As a result of the above discussion, the appeals of A4 and AS are partly allowed and they are
acquitted of the offences charged but convicted for the offence under Section 411 IPC and
sentenced to the term of imprisonment already undergone by them. The conviction of A1, A2
and A3 is altered to the one under Sections 302/34 IPC. 394/34 IPC and 379/34 IPC and they
are sentenced in the manner noticed above. To the extent indicated hereinabove their appeals
are also partly allowed. A4 and A5 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any
 other case. The recovered property shall be handed over to the heirs of the deceased, if not
already done.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DOCTRINE OF ‘RAREST OF RARE’ CASES

Because there is no constitutional definition of what Rarest of Rare means, the issue occurs every
time the Court awards the death penalty. There are situations in which the accused has
committed rape as well as murder and has been given a death sentence; however, there are
other situations with similar details and circumstances, but the accused has not been
sentenced to death. It’s hard to work out what is related to the variations in punishments in
such situations. Is it a ‘criminal’ or ‘Crime’ or ‘The Judge’? “

The Indian laws don’t hold a consistent point of view of the death penalty yet neither do they
deter it totally. Capital punishment in India has been limited to the rarest of rare cases- like
Section 121 (taking up arms against the state), Section 302 (murder), Section 364A
(kidnapping with ransom), and so on of the Indian Penal Code 1860, recommend offenses
culpable with the death penalty. The most widely recognized cases including significant
death row convicts are fear based oppression and assault cum murder cases.

There is no strait-jacket formula for the application of the ‘rarest of rare doctrine’. In a criminal
case, the trial consists of two main essentials i.e., the nature and the gravity of the crime.
Based on the two essentials the magnitude of the punishment can be carved out. The
Judicature of India is under a commitment to find some kind of harmony among aggravating
and mitigating conditions on one hand and cry of the general public on the other and also to
add the grounds should be remarkably sound so that there is no option left other than death
penalty. In recent times, the Apex Court has maintained capital punishment granted to the
blamed for Nirbhaya rape-cum-murder case subsequent to calling it as “rarest of rare” case
and outrageous discipline is conceded for guaranteeing equity. In India, “rarest of rare”
regulation is the measuring stick for giving the death penalty. 

The doctrine was formulated to act as a catalyst in the administration of justice as it will guide
the future judges and make their work easier.  Earlier, it was completely dependent on the
discretion of the judges to decide whether to give death sentences or award life imprisonment
 in a case. The doctrine if truly enunciated it its right spirit has a huge scope but it needs
reforms to overcome its unguided nature. The judges need to interpret the doctrine in its right
spirit without being moved by their own beliefs. It is an evolutionary process and will take
time.

In many other advanced parts of the world, such as the United States of America, the United
Kingdom, South Africa, etc., the judge grants the death penalty to the perpetrator in any
crime, which is the most important thing and most sensitive moment for both the Court and
the convict, because one human life is taken before the trial, both judicially and legally. It is
now perfectly clear that the death penalty is lawful if it is granted in keeping with the process
laid down by law and does not infringe any constitutional right of the person. This doctrine is
invoked in highly rare cases, where such a crime is relatively new and unimaginable to the
judicial authorities and has caused a significant offence to the complainant which, to the
greatest extent possible, is irreversible or cannot be re-established. Thus, after scrutinizing the
whole, it can be said that the principle of Rarest of Rare is partly a myth and partly a fact.