Two death-eligible cases, and two flawed sentences

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 SIDESTEP DUE PROCESS

- Neetika Vishwanath

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.

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.