New Delhi: In two separate rulings, courts in Kolkata and Kerala on Monday issued sharply different sentences in two high-profile murder cases, sparking debate on the death penalty in India.
The Kolkata court sentenced Sanjay Roy, a former Kolkata Police civic volunteer, to imprisonment till death after he was convicted of the rape and murder of an on-duty doctor at the state-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital. The Kerala court, on the other hand, handed the death penalty to 24-year-old S.S. Greeshma for poisoning her boyfriend.
The contrasting sentences underscore the nuanced interpretation of the “rarest of rare” case doctrine, with one court refraining from awarding the death penalty and the other finding it justified in the circumstances.
The Kolkata court acknowledged that the manner in which the offence was committed was “barbaric” and “brutal”, but it stopped short of handing the death penalty to Roy, saying there was no evidence of prior criminal behaviour or misconduct by the convict.
The court said the main point to be decided was whether the convict’s actions fell within the ambit of the “rarest of the rare” case. It then proceeded to examine whether Roy’s case met the threshold for capital punishment by considering the precedents laid down by the top court on the death penalty.
The court emphasised how “modern justice” must rise above “primitive instincts” like “an eye for an eye” or “a life for a life”.
“The judiciary’s primary responsibility is to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice based on evidence, not public sentiment,” the judge said. “It is of prime importance that the court maintain its objectivity and impartiality by focusing solely on the facts and evidence presented during the trial, rather than being swayed by public opinion or emotional reactions to the case. Furthermore, the court must consider the rights and circumstances of the accused, as well as the broader implications of its decisions.”
In a 172-page order passed on 18 January, the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Sealdah Court, Anirban Das, directed the West Bengal government to pay compensation of Rs 17 lakh to the doctor’s family.
In contrast, the Kerala court handed the death sentence to Greeshma for murdering her boyfriend Sharon Raj by poisoning him in 2022. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 4 lakh on the convict.
In its 588-page ruling, Neyyattinkara Additional District Court Judge Basheer A.M. said it was a “rarest of rare” crime. “I have no hesitation to hold that this case is one among the ‘rarest of rare’ cases…in which the lesser alternative is unquestionably foreclosed and special reasons do exist in this case within the meaning of S.354(3) Cr.P.C. to award death penalty to the accused for the offence U/S. 302 of Indian Penal Code.”
Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) states that any judgement convicting someone for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded. Murder is one such offence listed under Section 302 of the IPC.
How the two murders were committed
On 14 October 2022, Greeshma gave her boyfriend, Sharon Raj, a herbal medicine laced with Paraquat, a herbicide, at her residence. Eleven days later, Sharon passed away while being treated in the ICU of a medical college.
Sharon and Greeshma had been in a long-term relationship, but she wanted to end the relationship after her family arranged her marriage with another person. As Sharon refused to do so, Greeshma and her family had plotted the murder.
Sharon’s dying declaration to the magistrate, in which he stated he had consumed the concoction given by Greeshma without suspecting any harm, was a significant factor in the investigation, along with forensic evidence.
On the other hand, the Kolkata court held Roy guilty under Sections 64 (rape), 66 (punishment for causing death), and 103(1) (murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), for raping and murdering the trainee doctor at the RG Kar Hospital on 9 August last year.
The Sealdah court sentenced Roy to life imprisonment until death, rejecting demands for the death penalty, saying it was not a “rarest of the rare” crime.
Why court didn’t give death penalty to Roy
Citing the landmark Bachan Singh case, which established guidelines for imposing the death penalty, the Kolkata court said the case did not meet the stringent criteria for being classified as “rarest of the rare”.
In the 1980 Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab ruling, the Supreme Court said that the extreme death penalty should only be imposed in the gravest cases of extreme culpability. It also added that before opting for the death penalty, an offender’s circumstances need to be considered along with the circumstances surrounding the crime.
Finally, the SC clarified that life imprisonment is the “rule” while the death sentence is an “exception”. Essentially, it laid down that the death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment.
Moreover, it noted that all mitigating circumstances, which refer to factors that lessen the severity of an act or the actor’s culpability, must also be kept in mind and balanced accordingly.
The court also weighed into consideration any aggravating circumstances, which are factors that increase the severity of an act, and usually lead to a harsher punishment for the convict.
Also Read: Elgar Parishad case: Why Rona Wilson & Sudhir Dhawale were granted bail after 6 yrs in jail
What are ‘rarest of the rare’ cases?
Three years later, the top court in Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab clarified the rationale for imposing the death penalty.
It said the rule of law operates as a deterrent for those who have no scruples in killing others.
“Every member of the community owes a debt to the community for this protection. When ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by ‘killing’ a member of the community which protects the murderer himself from being killed, or when the community feels that for the sake of self-preservation, the killer has to be killed, the community may well withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty,” the court said. “But the community will not do so in every case. It may do so ‘in rarest of rare cases’.”
The court described these “rarest of rare cases” as those where the collective conscience is so shocked that it expects holders of judicial power to inflict the death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion on the desirability of retaining the death penalty, or otherwise.
Applying these principles to Roy’s case, the court said, “The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised that the death penalty should be used only in exceptional circumstances where the collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it expects the holders of judicial power to inflict the death penalty.”
On the other hand, in Greeshma’s case, while citing the 1980 and 1983 SC rulings, the court said that the death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears inadequate and when there are certain “exceptional circumstances” to the crime, as in the present case, where it was inclined to give the death penalty.
How Greeshma’s case fits into ‘rarest of the rare’ category
The state argued that Greeshma had breached the trust and love, while also attempting her boyfriend’s murder earlier, and thus, should be given capital punishment.
Contending that mitigating circumferences didn’t exist in Greeshma’s case, the judge said, “I have no hesitation to hold that this case is one among the ‘rarest of rare’ cases, as discussed above, in which the lesser alternative is unquestionably foreclosed and special reasons do exist in this case within the meaning of S.354(3) Cr.P.C. to award death penalty to the accused”.
After looking at the circumstances, the court said it would fail in its duty if the maximum punishment prescribed under the law was not imposed on the accused. “In the circumstances, the death sentence alone would be proper and legal.”
Underlining that the convict’s entire act amounted to “barbaric and inhuman behaviour of the highest order”, the court said the manner in which the murder was carried out was “extremely brutal, gruesome, diabolical and revolting as to shock the collective conscience of the community”.
Relying on the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in the Susheel Murmu vs. State Jharkhand case, the court said, “In rarest of rare cases the collective conscience of the society is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, death sentence can be awarded.”
In that case, the court had also provided examples of circumstances that can be considered fit for the grant of the death penalty, such as when the murder is committed in an “extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community”.
The court said as Greeshma killed Sharon “inch-by-inch”, it was extremely brutal.
Another example of this is when a murder is committed for a motive that shows total “depravity and meanness misusing the position of trust”, it said.
The court added that all WhatsApp chats in Greeshma’s case revealed an innocent man who blindly trusted his girlfriend.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: As SC Collegium considers proposal to tackle nepotism, how the bar views the possible move