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.Lets consider the facts of the previous case, where a man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two minor sons. The following additional facts are added to the case: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; however, the sentence was reduced to life 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. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, since the High Court had commuted death sentence and reduced it to life imprisonmentb)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 (12 years) after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to get it commuted.c)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the accused was not the only perpetrator and he had around 60-70 people with him. One man alone should not bear the burden on the entire offence.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Lets consider the facts of the previous case, where a man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two minor sons. The following additional facts are added to the case: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; however, the sentence was reduced to life 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. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, since the High Court had commuted death sentence and reduced it to life imprisonmentb)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 (12 years) after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to get it commuted.c)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the accused was not the only perpetrator and he had around 60-70 people with him. One man alone should not bear the burden on the entire offence.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Lets consider the facts of the previous case, where a man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two minor sons. The following additional facts are added to the case: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; however, the sentence was reduced to life 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. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, since the High Court had commuted death sentence and reduced it to life imprisonmentb)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 (12 years) after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to get it commuted.c)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the accused was not the only perpetrator and he had around 60-70 people with him. One man alone should not bear the burden on the entire offence.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Lets consider the facts of the previous case, where a man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two minor sons. The following additional facts are added to the case: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; however, the sentence was reduced to life 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. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, since the High Court had commuted death sentence and reduced it to life imprisonmentb)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 (12 years) after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to get it commuted.c)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the accused was not the only perpetrator and he had around 60-70 people with him. One man alone should not bear the burden on the entire offence.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Lets consider the facts of the previous case, where a man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two minor sons. The following additional facts are added to the case: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; however, the sentence was reduced to life 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. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, since the High Court had commuted death sentence and reduced it to life imprisonmentb)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 (12 years) after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to get it commuted.c)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the accused was not the only perpetrator and he had around 60-70 people with him. One man alone should not bear the burden on the entire offence.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Lets consider the facts of the previous case, where a man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two minor sons. The following additional facts are added to the case: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; however, the sentence was reduced to life 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. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, since the High Court had commuted death sentence and reduced it to life imprisonmentb)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 (12 years) after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to get it commuted.c)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the accused was not the only perpetrator and he had around 60-70 people with him. One man alone should not bear the burden on the entire offence.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Lets consider the facts of the previous case, where a man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two minor sons. The following additional facts are added to the case: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; however, the sentence was reduced to life 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. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, since the High Court had commuted death sentence and reduced it to life imprisonmentb)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 (12 years) after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to get it commuted.c)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the accused was not the only perpetrator and he had around 60-70 people with him. One man alone should not bear the burden on the entire offence.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Lets consider the facts of the previous case, where a man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two minor sons. The following additional facts are added to the case: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; however, the sentence was reduced to life 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. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, since the High Court had commuted death sentence and reduced it to life imprisonmentb)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 (12 years) after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to get it commuted.c)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the accused was not the only perpetrator and he had around 60-70 people with him. One man alone should not bear the burden on the entire offence.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.Lets consider the facts of the previous case, where a man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two minor sons. The following additional facts are added to the case: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; however, the sentence was reduced to life 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. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?a)No, since the High Court had commuted death sentence and reduced it to life imprisonmentb)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 (12 years) after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to get it commuted.c)No, the crime was brutal and if the accused is convicted, he shall not be allowed to let off easily.d)Yes, the commuting of death sentence can be pleaded as the accused was not the only perpetrator and he had around 60-70 people with him. One man alone should not bear the burden on the entire offence.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.