Quite expectedly and
welcomingly, the learned judge in the Nirbhaya case pronounced “death to all” found guilty of committing an
act that shook the entire nation, akin to the incidents like attack on our
Parliament and the Mumbai attacks.
Quite expectedly
again, there were voices from foreign office of UK, and from the EU, besides
from Amnesty International which expressed their reservations against this sentence.
But, we can choose to ignore the same, as our judicial process is not
subservient to international opinion.
With due respects to
the Hon’ble Court which pronounced this sentence, which has satisfied the
collective conscience of our society, as was evident by the reactions of crowds
eagerly awaiting the judgement, one wonders if this sentence would eventually
be carried out?
To quote the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, “Inhuman acts of torture before her death had not
only shocked the collective conscience but calls for withdrawal of the
protective arm of the community around these convicts. Accordingly, the convicts
be hanged by the neck till they are dead.”
In its twenty page
order, the Hon’ble Court said that the criminal justice system needed to instil
faith in women by adopting a zero tolerance policy. The “severity” of the
injuries and the “unprovoked” suffering inflicted upon the “defenceless” victim
were also relied upon by the Hon’ble Court while handing down the Capital
punishment.
Going by the past precedents
in two cases involving a similar crime, it is observed that while Dhananjay
Chatterjee was executed in 2004 for committing a similar crime, Santosh Singh a
lawyer by training was spared the gallows by the Hon’b’le Supreme Court, and
was made to serve a life sentence. He was held guilty of raping and then
murdering Priyadarshini Mattoo. He had even disfigured her face beyond recognition.
In both the cases,
the offence was identical with two key differences:
a)
Dhananjay
Chatterjee was a security guard while Santosh Singh is a trained lawyer, and
b)
Dhananjay
Chatterjee appeared to be unrepentant later, on while the Honb’le Supreme Court
was convinced that Santosh Singh can be reformed.
One wonders, if a
well educated person like Santosh Singh who was trained to aid the judicial
process can commit such a heinous crime can be spared the gallows, ostensibly
because of his so-called good behaviour in jail later on, then isn’t there a
possibility that these four men do stand a chance of being spared the noose, if
they too are perceived to be repentant later on, and on grounds of their young
age, poverty, clean antecedents and other mitigating circumstances?
Secondly, on a technical
issue. The facts of the case clearly indicate that the intention of these four
men was to inflict severe injuries on Nirbhaya and not to kill her. Else, they
could have killed her before leaving the scene of crime, as in the two cases mentioned
above. That she was left on the road with severe injuries is a vital fact that
cannot be overlooked. This fact contrasts significantly to the Priyadarshini
Mattoo case where the victim was killed later by her tormentor, who also disfigured
her face beyond recognition before leaving the scene of crime. Going by the
acts of savagery and cruelty inflicted on the victim, the depravity of this crime
is no less significant as in Nirbhaya’s case.
My objective of
highlighting these facts is not to plead for a lighter sentence to the four
accused, but to caution the Special Public Prosecutor Dayan Krishnan and his
team, of the challenges which lie ahead of them before death sentence is
carried out. Yes, they certainly deserve our standing ovation for such a
professional job which has earned them plaudits from across the Nation, but
this is not the time for them to rest on their laurels.
And finally,
according to the Hon’ble Court, for a case to fall under the “rarest of rare”
category, perception of the society towards the offence was important. “The
Court has to look into factors like society’s abhorrence, extreme indignation,
and antipathy to certain types of cases.”
If this yardstick
were to be applied to Priyadarshini Mattoo’s case, and to those life convicts
who have been held guilty of similar crimes involving minors, then it would
appear that the ends of justice have not been met in these cases. That would be
really disturbing.
