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.A man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two, minor sons, aged 10 and 6. The family was engaged in professing and propagating Christianity amongst tribals by conducting a series of programmes. The Court did not appear to have found any evidence that the family was using coercive tactics, fraud or inducement in professing and propagating their religion. However, there was evidence of conversion. The prime accused, aided by a mob of approximately 60-70 people, burned the three victims alive while they were sleeping in a station wagon, and thereby "punished" them for converting "poor tribals" to Christianity. In the above mentioned case, should the court pronounce a death sentence against the prime accused?a)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The Christian missionary was propagating and thereby converting the tribals and thus not letting them exercise their right to profess, practise and propagate religion. The accused was merely protecting the rights of the tribals.b)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The victims deaths were not caused by the prime suspect alone, and accordingly instead of the death sentence, life imprisonment would be a more appropriate punishment.c)Yes, the court should grant a death sentence. The murder was with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of the fundamental right to profess and propagate religion.d)Yes, the court should-grant a death sentence. The international community in the present case would be looking down upon the Indian judicial system and killing of a Christian missionary should be aptly punished in the eyes of the international community.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.A man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two, minor sons, aged 10 and 6. The family was engaged in professing and propagating Christianity amongst tribals by conducting a series of programmes. The Court did not appear to have found any evidence that the family was using coercive tactics, fraud or inducement in professing and propagating their religion. However, there was evidence of conversion. The prime accused, aided by a mob of approximately 60-70 people, burned the three victims alive while they were sleeping in a station wagon, and thereby "punished" them for converting "poor tribals" to Christianity. In the above mentioned case, should the court pronounce a death sentence against the prime accused?a)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The Christian missionary was propagating and thereby converting the tribals and thus not letting them exercise their right to profess, practise and propagate religion. The accused was merely protecting the rights of the tribals.b)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The victims deaths were not caused by the prime suspect alone, and accordingly instead of the death sentence, life imprisonment would be a more appropriate punishment.c)Yes, the court should grant a death sentence. The murder was with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of the fundamental right to profess and propagate religion.d)Yes, the court should-grant a death sentence. The international community in the present case would be looking down upon the Indian judicial system and killing of a Christian missionary should be aptly punished in the eyes of the international community.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.A man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two, minor sons, aged 10 and 6. The family was engaged in professing and propagating Christianity amongst tribals by conducting a series of programmes. The Court did not appear to have found any evidence that the family was using coercive tactics, fraud or inducement in professing and propagating their religion. However, there was evidence of conversion. The prime accused, aided by a mob of approximately 60-70 people, burned the three victims alive while they were sleeping in a station wagon, and thereby "punished" them for converting "poor tribals" to Christianity. In the above mentioned case, should the court pronounce a death sentence against the prime accused?a)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The Christian missionary was propagating and thereby converting the tribals and thus not letting them exercise their right to profess, practise and propagate religion. The accused was merely protecting the rights of the tribals.b)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The victims deaths were not caused by the prime suspect alone, and accordingly instead of the death sentence, life imprisonment would be a more appropriate punishment.c)Yes, the court should grant a death sentence. The murder was with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of the fundamental right to profess and propagate religion.d)Yes, the court should-grant a death sentence. The international community in the present case would be looking down upon the Indian judicial system and killing of a Christian missionary should be aptly punished in the eyes of the international community.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.A man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two, minor sons, aged 10 and 6. The family was engaged in professing and propagating Christianity amongst tribals by conducting a series of programmes. The Court did not appear to have found any evidence that the family was using coercive tactics, fraud or inducement in professing and propagating their religion. However, there was evidence of conversion. The prime accused, aided by a mob of approximately 60-70 people, burned the three victims alive while they were sleeping in a station wagon, and thereby "punished" them for converting "poor tribals" to Christianity. In the above mentioned case, should the court pronounce a death sentence against the prime accused?a)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The Christian missionary was propagating and thereby converting the tribals and thus not letting them exercise their right to profess, practise and propagate religion. The accused was merely protecting the rights of the tribals.b)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The victims deaths were not caused by the prime suspect alone, and accordingly instead of the death sentence, life imprisonment would be a more appropriate punishment.c)Yes, the court should grant a death sentence. The murder was with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of the fundamental right to profess and propagate religion.d)Yes, the court should-grant a death sentence. The international community in the present case would be looking down upon the Indian judicial system and killing of a Christian missionary should be aptly punished in the eyes of the international community.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.A man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two, minor sons, aged 10 and 6. The family was engaged in professing and propagating Christianity amongst tribals by conducting a series of programmes. The Court did not appear to have found any evidence that the family was using coercive tactics, fraud or inducement in professing and propagating their religion. However, there was evidence of conversion. The prime accused, aided by a mob of approximately 60-70 people, burned the three victims alive while they were sleeping in a station wagon, and thereby "punished" them for converting "poor tribals" to Christianity. In the above mentioned case, should the court pronounce a death sentence against the prime accused?a)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The Christian missionary was propagating and thereby converting the tribals and thus not letting them exercise their right to profess, practise and propagate religion. The accused was merely protecting the rights of the tribals.b)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The victims deaths were not caused by the prime suspect alone, and accordingly instead of the death sentence, life imprisonment would be a more appropriate punishment.c)Yes, the court should grant a death sentence. The murder was with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of the fundamental right to profess and propagate religion.d)Yes, the court should-grant a death sentence. The international community in the present case would be looking down upon the Indian judicial system and killing of a Christian missionary should be aptly punished in the eyes of the international community.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.A man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two, minor sons, aged 10 and 6. The family was engaged in professing and propagating Christianity amongst tribals by conducting a series of programmes. The Court did not appear to have found any evidence that the family was using coercive tactics, fraud or inducement in professing and propagating their religion. However, there was evidence of conversion. The prime accused, aided by a mob of approximately 60-70 people, burned the three victims alive while they were sleeping in a station wagon, and thereby "punished" them for converting "poor tribals" to Christianity. In the above mentioned case, should the court pronounce a death sentence against the prime accused?a)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The Christian missionary was propagating and thereby converting the tribals and thus not letting them exercise their right to profess, practise and propagate religion. The accused was merely protecting the rights of the tribals.b)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The victims deaths were not caused by the prime suspect alone, and accordingly instead of the death sentence, life imprisonment would be a more appropriate punishment.c)Yes, the court should grant a death sentence. The murder was with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of the fundamental right to profess and propagate religion.d)Yes, the court should-grant a death sentence. The international community in the present case would be looking down upon the Indian judicial system and killing of a Christian missionary should be aptly punished in the eyes of the international community.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.A man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two, minor sons, aged 10 and 6. The family was engaged in professing and propagating Christianity amongst tribals by conducting a series of programmes. The Court did not appear to have found any evidence that the family was using coercive tactics, fraud or inducement in professing and propagating their religion. However, there was evidence of conversion. The prime accused, aided by a mob of approximately 60-70 people, burned the three victims alive while they were sleeping in a station wagon, and thereby "punished" them for converting "poor tribals" to Christianity. In the above mentioned case, should the court pronounce a death sentence against the prime accused?a)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The Christian missionary was propagating and thereby converting the tribals and thus not letting them exercise their right to profess, practise and propagate religion. The accused was merely protecting the rights of the tribals.b)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The victims deaths were not caused by the prime suspect alone, and accordingly instead of the death sentence, life imprisonment would be a more appropriate punishment.c)Yes, the court should grant a death sentence. The murder was with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of the fundamental right to profess and propagate religion.d)Yes, the court should-grant a death sentence. The international community in the present case would be looking down upon the Indian judicial system and killing of a Christian missionary should be aptly punished in the eyes of the international community.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.A man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two, minor sons, aged 10 and 6. The family was engaged in professing and propagating Christianity amongst tribals by conducting a series of programmes. The Court did not appear to have found any evidence that the family was using coercive tactics, fraud or inducement in professing and propagating their religion. However, there was evidence of conversion. The prime accused, aided by a mob of approximately 60-70 people, burned the three victims alive while they were sleeping in a station wagon, and thereby "punished" them for converting "poor tribals" to Christianity. In the above mentioned case, should the court pronounce a death sentence against the prime accused?a)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The Christian missionary was propagating and thereby converting the tribals and thus not letting them exercise their right to profess, practise and propagate religion. The accused was merely protecting the rights of the tribals.b)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The victims deaths were not caused by the prime suspect alone, and accordingly instead of the death sentence, life imprisonment would be a more appropriate punishment.c)Yes, the court should grant a death sentence. The murder was with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of the fundamental right to profess and propagate religion.d)Yes, the court should-grant a death sentence. The international community in the present case would be looking down upon the Indian judicial system and killing of a Christian missionary should be aptly punished in the eyes of the international community.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.A man is accused of murdering a Christian missionary, and his two, minor sons, aged 10 and 6. The family was engaged in professing and propagating Christianity amongst tribals by conducting a series of programmes. The Court did not appear to have found any evidence that the family was using coercive tactics, fraud or inducement in professing and propagating their religion. However, there was evidence of conversion. The prime accused, aided by a mob of approximately 60-70 people, burned the three victims alive while they were sleeping in a station wagon, and thereby "punished" them for converting "poor tribals" to Christianity. In the above mentioned case, should the court pronounce a death sentence against the prime accused?a)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The Christian missionary was propagating and thereby converting the tribals and thus not letting them exercise their right to profess, practise and propagate religion. The accused was merely protecting the rights of the tribals.b)No, the court should not grant a death sentence. The victims deaths were not caused by the prime suspect alone, and accordingly instead of the death sentence, life imprisonment would be a more appropriate punishment.c)Yes, the court should grant a death sentence. The murder was with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of the fundamental right to profess and propagate religion.d)Yes, the court should-grant a death sentence. The international community in the present case would be looking down upon the Indian judicial system and killing of a Christian missionary should be aptly punished in the eyes of the international community.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.