Justice can’t only be done, it must be ‘seen’ to have been ‘done’. The adage finds resonance with the session court’s verdict in the RG Kar rape-murder case. The court has granted life imprisonment to the sole convict Sanjay Roy, which has brought opposing parties on the same table.
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee — who had herself taken to streets to seek justice for the 31-year-old PGT doctor — has sought death penalty for Roy, accusing the Central Bureau of Investigation for showing laxity in probing the case.
Although CM Banerjee’s adverse attitude towards the central investigative agencies is a very common phenomenon, the case has brought two opposing parties on the same page— indeed a ‘rare’ occurrence.
It is not just the State but the CBI too has moved the Calcutta High Court, seeking death penalty for the rapist-murderer Roy.
The session court while pronouncing judgement specified that it does not consider the case to be ‘rarest of rare’— reason enough to exempt Roy from death penalty.
On deeper analysis, in the Bachan Singh case of 1979, the principles of aggravating circumstances which called for the death penalty were suggested by the Supreme Court.
If the incident in question is pre-planned, calculated and involves ‘extreme brutality’ or signifies ‘exceptional depravity’ then death penalty can be granted.
The judge, in this case, may not have been convinced to grant capital punishment to the convict.
Another point of argument can be that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence that could have convinced the judges to qualify the case as ‘rarest of rare’ or something ‘exceptional’.
This has added to the disgruntlement of already disheartened parents of the victim and politicians. It has mounted to the popular demand, which is echoed by people from various backgrounds— an incident that shocked the collective conscience of the nation.
The idea behind giving strictest punishment to those committing such crimes is that it should act as a deterrent for others. But the popular sentiment suggests that the session court’s verdict has failed to achieve this. Has death penalty been a means to stop crimes in the world?
India’s criminal law — former Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the current Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — reserves the death penalty for exceptional cases. Crimes deemed heinous are counted under this where the perpetrator is considered too dangerous for parole. Judges are required to provide ‘special reasons’ when awarding a death sentence and ensure that the accused has the right to be heard before sentencing.
The apex court’s guidelines mandate that a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be drawn up before awarding a death sentence.
Judges, in this case, have focussed on reformative laws, but that has failed to satisfy people.
The judgement states: “The primary responsibility of the judiciary is to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice based on evidence, not public sentiment.”
The court also noted that Roy had no prior history of criminal behaviour or misconduct and emphasised that modern justice must rise above primitive instincts of retribution, such as “an eye for an eye.”
This logic when placed vis-à-vis a verdict given in 2016 by judge Anirban Das — he was hearing the RG Kar case too — raises speculations.
Das had earlier given the death penalty to a drug smuggler. He reportedly referred to the drug smuggler as the nation’s enemy.
One wonders whether or not Roy’s crime could qualify as ‘rarest of rare’.
The RG Kar case has reminded of the Delhi gang-rape case of 2012. In 2019, a veterinary doctor was raped and murdered in Hyderabad. In popular opinion, the Cyberabad Police had set an example by shooting the rapists. But the punishment meted out to the culprits could not deter rapists.
Rape and cases of sexual violence have been in focus in India. But the cases do not cease to be reported every now and then.
Over 560 prisoners in India are on death row, as of 2024— this is the highest figure in two decades. But a low rate of disposal of such cases raises questions on the deterrent value of capital punishment.
The Calcutta High Court will hear the petitions, seeking death penalty in the case on January 27— a judgement that the nation will look up to.
Follow us
