All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Read the information given below carefully an... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.
A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?
To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.
Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.
The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.
To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-
Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.
However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".
Q. Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?
  • a)
    No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.
  • b)
    No, delays like these by investigative agencies are not uncommon and a convict should not be allowed to take advantage of the flawed system of the country.
  • c)
    No, given the fact that the Indian judicial system is slow, a delay of 12 years in judgement is not out of the ordinary. If it is allowed that in such cases death will commuted, it will lead to all death sentence cases being commuted.
  • d)
    Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
Read the information given below carefully and answer the following qu...
The delay has not been caused by the convict therefore on the account of the "death row phenomenon" as discussed by the author, death sentence can be commuted.
View all questions of this test
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following is not the appropriate cause-and-effect relationship in the passages context?

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following statements cannot be deduced from the passage above, according to the passage?

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.According to the passage, which of the following is NOT a key difference between ED authorities and the police in their approach to investigations?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.b)No, delays like these by investigative agencies are not uncommon and a convict should not be allowed to take advantage of the flawed system of the country.c)No, given the fact that the Indian judicial system is slow, a delay of 12 years in judgement is not out of the ordinary. If it is allowed that in such cases death will commuted, it will lead to all death sentence cases being commuted.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.b)No, delays like these by investigative agencies are not uncommon and a convict should not be allowed to take advantage of the flawed system of the country.c)No, given the fact that the Indian judicial system is slow, a delay of 12 years in judgement is not out of the ordinary. If it is allowed that in such cases death will commuted, it will lead to all death sentence cases being commuted.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.b)No, delays like these by investigative agencies are not uncommon and a convict should not be allowed to take advantage of the flawed system of the country.c)No, given the fact that the Indian judicial system is slow, a delay of 12 years in judgement is not out of the ordinary. If it is allowed that in such cases death will commuted, it will lead to all death sentence cases being commuted.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.b)No, delays like these by investigative agencies are not uncommon and a convict should not be allowed to take advantage of the flawed system of the country.c)No, given the fact that the Indian judicial system is slow, a delay of 12 years in judgement is not out of the ordinary. If it is allowed that in such cases death will commuted, it will lead to all death sentence cases being commuted.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.b)No, delays like these by investigative agencies are not uncommon and a convict should not be allowed to take advantage of the flawed system of the country.c)No, given the fact that the Indian judicial system is slow, a delay of 12 years in judgement is not out of the ordinary. If it is allowed that in such cases death will commuted, it will lead to all death sentence cases being commuted.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.b)No, delays like these by investigative agencies are not uncommon and a convict should not be allowed to take advantage of the flawed system of the country.c)No, given the fact that the Indian judicial system is slow, a delay of 12 years in judgement is not out of the ordinary. If it is allowed that in such cases death will commuted, it will lead to all death sentence cases being commuted.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.b)No, delays like these by investigative agencies are not uncommon and a convict should not be allowed to take advantage of the flawed system of the country.c)No, given the fact that the Indian judicial system is slow, a delay of 12 years in judgement is not out of the ordinary. If it is allowed that in such cases death will commuted, it will lead to all death sentence cases being commuted.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.b)No, delays like these by investigative agencies are not uncommon and a convict should not be allowed to take advantage of the flawed system of the country.c)No, given the fact that the Indian judicial system is slow, a delay of 12 years in judgement is not out of the ordinary. If it is allowed that in such cases death will commuted, it will lead to all death sentence cases being commuted.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.b)No, delays like these by investigative agencies are not uncommon and a convict should not be allowed to take advantage of the flawed system of the country.c)No, given the fact that the Indian judicial system is slow, a delay of 12 years in judgement is not out of the ordinary. If it is allowed that in such cases death will commuted, it will lead to all death sentence cases being commuted.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.b)No, delays like these by investigative agencies are not uncommon and a convict should not be allowed to take advantage of the flawed system of the country.c)No, given the fact that the Indian judicial system is slow, a delay of 12 years in judgement is not out of the ordinary. If it is allowed that in such cases death will commuted, it will lead to all death sentence cases being commuted.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup