close_game
close_game

Two death-eligible cases, and two flawed sentences

Jan 24, 2025 08:09 PM IST

A closer look at sentencing orders in Greeshma and RG Kar cases makes it evident that they have more in common than we think despite the divergent punishments

On January 20, 2025, two trial courts in different parts of the country — in Neyyattinkara, Kerala and in Kolkata, West Bengal — imposed starkly different sentences in two high-profile death-eligible cases. The Kerala case popularly known as the Greeshma case involves a young woman who has been held guilty and sentenced to death for poisoning her male partner. On the other hand, the accused, a civic volunteer of Kolkata police, in the case from West Bengal was sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the homicidal rape of a doctor in the RG Kar Hospital, in Kolkata. Despite this divergence, both sentencing decisions fail to adhere to fairness and due process and flout the recent guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (May 2022). Imposition of the lesser life sentence in the RG Kar case then is not a demonstration of fair and principled sentencing. Instead, the decision is equally erroneous in law, if not more than the one in the Greeshma case.

Kolkata, India - Jan. 20, 2025: Social activists protest outside the Civil and Criminal Court, Sealdah as court convicts accused Sanjay Roy (not in picture) to life in prison over rape-murder of on-duty PGT doctor at RG Kar Hospital in Kolkata, India, on Monday, January 20, 2025. (Photo by Samir Jana/ Hindustan Times) (Hindustan Times) PREMIUM
Kolkata, India - Jan. 20, 2025: Social activists protest outside the Civil and Criminal Court, Sealdah as court convicts accused Sanjay Roy (not in picture) to life in prison over rape-murder of on-duty PGT doctor at RG Kar Hospital in Kolkata, India, on Monday, January 20, 2025. (Photo by Samir Jana/ Hindustan Times) (Hindustan Times)

But why should this matter? More importantly, why should anyone principally opposed to the death penalty be bothered by the sentencing order in the RG Kar case that goes against the shrill public demands to “hang the rapist”? Simply put, our commitment to fairness and due process means we must care not only about the punishment but also about the process that leads to it.

Before examining the sentencing order in the RG Kar case, let us briefly revisit the law on death penalty sentencing laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). In deciding between life-or-death sentences, courts must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to both the accused and the crime. In broad terms, aggravating circumstances add to the seriousness of the crime and justify a higher sentence whereas mitigating circumstances explain the crime and have the impact of reducing the sentence. In essence, it is not just the crime but the life circumstances of the accused that become relevant to a sentencing decision. So, aspects of a person that have little to do with the crime like their adverse childhood experience assume significance at sentencing. Further, courts are also required to rule on the question of the accused’s probability of reformation since there is a preference for a life sentence under Indian law and the death penalty is to be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases. In fact, the law casts a burden on the prosecution to show that the accused cannot be reformed, in the absence of which it is presumed that it is probable.

Added to this 45-year-old decision which is the law on death penalty sentencing is the recent Supreme Court guidelines in Manoj. Acknowledging the pervasive problem of poor sentencing arguments by defence lawyers in trial courts, Manoj called for sentencing courts to be proactive and mandated them to call for reports regarding the jail conduct and psychiatric evaluation of the accused along with the report of the probation officer. This is in addition to a report submitted by a mitigation investigator as a part of the defence team. The requirement to call for three reports from the state has been set by the Supreme Court as a bare minimum safeguard against deficient sentencing hearings.

The sentencing order in the RG Kar case, however, did not call for the Manoj reports. Instead, the court held the sentencing hearing two days after the accused was held guilty while giving little time between the conviction and sentencing hearings.

The legal aid lawyer representing the accused made perfunctory arguments on sentencing and as a result, the court barely had any meaningful information about the accused while knowing a great detail about the crime. Strangely, yet, the court imposed the life sentence by holding that the probability of reformation of the accused could not be ruled out without giving any reasons backing this assertion. We could say that the court made a presumption of reformation, as is the law because the prosecution produced no evidence to rule out reform. But we can only speculate about this logic since the sentencing order says nothing except to note that the probability of reform was not foreclosed.

Similar to the sentencing order in the RG Kar case, the trial court in the Greeshma case overlooked the guidelines in Manoj. Accessible mitigating factors such as the young age of the accused were not considered and instead, outrightly dismissed by pitting it against the young age of the victim. While the probability of reformation of the accused was dismissed here unlike the RG Kar case, this sentencing order equally lacked reasons supporting this negative conclusion. Although the order in the Greeshma case noted that reform is not possible due to the nature of the crime, this cannot qualify as a reason since such crime-centric backwards-looking assertion ruling out the probability of reformation can be made for all death-eligible crimes given their serious nature. It requires no judicial deliberation and any real engagement with the circumstances of the accused.

In essence, a closer look at the sentencing orders in Greeshma and RG Kar cases makes it evident that they have more in common than we think despite the divergent punishments. Both orders side-step due process and are arbitrary in that they carry pronouncements without reasons backing the same. Such an approach to sentencing must worry us all because these two orders are by no means outliers. Instead, they are emblematic of a broken criminal justice system ridden with lawlessness and arbitrariness at sentencing.

Neetika Vishwanath is director (sentencing) at Project 39A, National Law University, Delhi.The views expressed are personal

rec-icon Recommended Topics
Share this article

For evolved readers seeking more than just news

Subscribe now to unlock this article and access exclusive content to stay ahead
E-paper | Expert Analysis & Opinion | Geopolitics | Sports | Games
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Tuesday, February 11, 2025
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On