It cuts across a wide cross-section which includes many common people to chief minister Mamata Banerjee. They remain unsatisfied that the accused will serve a rigorous prison term for the entire length of his natural life. At the instance of the Chief Minister, the West Bengal Government went to the Kolkata High Court on Wednesday seeking the review of the sentence for life term in favour of death penalty. The Supreme Court also heard the R G Kar issue on Wednesday.
Nothing except an order of capital punishment will make them feel that justice has been done to Abhaya, the fearless one as deceased has been dubbed. The parents of the deceased harbour similar sentiments for the man proved to be the killer of their only child.
Hammurabi's Code where an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is laid down is no longer in practice. Though very few are aware of its existence, as things have turned out many feel it should have been followed in this matter
The judge, Anirban Das, however thought otherwise. Public sentiment did not affect his judicial mind. He found death penalty to be unsuitable. For he did not find it to be "a rarest of the rare" case. This principle was laid down by the Supreme Court in the Bachan Singh case of 1979. The judge referred to its stringent criteria. The Sealdah court sentence brings out two issues. The broader is that however stringent the criteria, the principle "rarest of rare" would contain an element of subjective assessment. It may be small but it has to be there.
The judge zeroed in on a more specific issue. The onus is on the prosecution to provide appropriate investigation and evidence. In this case, CBI is the probe agency. It failed to investigate properly and provide the evidence.
The judge opined that the investigation and evidence did not convince that the case was exceptional. The sentence pronounced puts the ball in the CBI's court. This has left a huge section of the populace disappointed. What they overlook that the court proceeds on evidence and not sentiment no matter how popular.
It pulls strongly against the judgement. Refreshing public memory, many recalled a similar case in the tenure of chief minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee in which a security guard of a high-rise was given capital sentence.
The wife of the then chief minister had taken out a procession in support of a stringent punishment. The present ruling dispensation refrained from repeating the protest march though there were protests voiced by some of the members of the powers that be.
Reverting to the Abhaya case, the sentence did not bow to popular sentiment or emotional appeal. It was based on evidence. Its emphasis was on reform. But the popular sentiment read hate and anger finds it irrelevant.
One ought not to lose sight of the fact that death penalty in general has been found to be an inadequate deterrent against crime the world over. Since the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, new and more vigorous laws are being enacted against rape.
Death penalty for rape has become an intensely debated issue. There is a high rate of rape and gang rape in India. It is a pointer that death penalty is far from a deterrent. Such a punishment raises moral quandaries.
The possibility of being recognised raises the tendency of murdering the target. There are differences of perception between the law and the people and the Sealdah court sentence underlines that. (IPA Service)