On January 20, the Neyyatinkara Additional Sessions Court sentenced 24-year-old SS Greeshma to death for poisoning her boyfriend, Sharon Raj. On the same day, another judge in Kolkata sentenced Sanjay Roy, who raped and murdered a young doctor at RG Kar Medical College hospital, to life imprisonment, despite public demands for capital punishment. These contrasting decisions raise significant questions: did Greeshma's crime truly warrant the extreme punishment, and did Sanjay Roy escape the maximum penalty he deserved?

India’s criminal law, including the former Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the current Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, reserves the death penalty for exceptional cases. These include crimes deemed heinous, 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.

“You need to follow the steps outlined by the Supreme Court, such as procuring conduct reports from prison, probation officers’ reports, and mental health evaluations. None of these steps were followed in the Greeshma case. How have they concluded that there is no scope for reform in the convict without these?” Dr Anup Surendranath, Director of Project 39A at National Law University, Delhi, told Onmanorama during the News Brake podcast.

Supreme Court guidelines mandate that a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be drawn up before awarding a death sentence. In its judgement, the Neyyatinkara court cited several aggravating factors, such as the brutal and premeditated nature of the crime, the use of a highly toxic herbicide (paraquat), and the victim’s innocence and defencelessness. But what was rather unexpected in the list of aggravating factors listed by the court were inferences that the crime was 'antisocial or socially abhorrent' since the accused had sex with the victim while speaking to her fiance; crime sent a 'wrong message to the society' where youths are following live-in relationship; the offence was committed with intention of creating fear, psychosis among public; and that it gave a message that 'a lover cannot be believed'.

Conversely, mitigating factors like Greeshma’s young age, her potential for rehabilitation, and the possibility of mental or emotional disturbance were acknowledged but deemed insufficient to outweigh the crime's heinous nature.

“The convict was barely 22 years old at the time of the offence and has no prior criminal antecedents. An earlier attempt to poison the same person is usually not considered a criminal antecedent. The probability of mitigating factors alone should be enough for a court to choose the lesser alternative to the death penalty. Though not mandatory, the court could have consulted psychologists or other experts to explore the convict's chances of reform before sentencing,” retired Justice Kamal Pasha told Onmanorama.

In contrast, the judge in the RG Kar case, while describing Sanjay Roy’s actions as 'barbaric and brutal', ruled that the case did not meet the 'rarest of rare' standard required for a death sentence. “The judiciary's primary responsibility is to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice based on evidence, not public sentiment,” the judgement stated. The court 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.”

“In this case, the convict is not extremely young. He committed a brutal act of rape and murder at a workplace and is a threat to society. His actions have instilled fear among young professionals who work to make a living. Just like the Nirbhaya case, this holds the potential to qualify as 'rarest of rare',” Justice Kamal Pasha added.

The 1980 Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab ruling, a landmark case on capital punishment, observed that the death penalty should only be imposed in cases of extreme culpability. It stressed that the circumstances of the offender must be considered alongside the circumstances of the crime, with life imprisonment being the rule and the death sentence an exception. Judges are required to give full weight to mitigating factors and strike a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

As of 2024, over 560 prisoners in India are on death row—the highest figure in two decades. Yet, with a low rate of disposal of such cases, questions remain about the deterrent value of capital punishment. “In 95% of death penalty cases, appellate courts either overturn the sentences or commute them to life imprisonment, highlighting an over-reliance on capital punishment at the trial level,” Dr Anup Surendranath said. Trial courts often yield to public pressure, with the expectation that higher courts will rectify any errors, he added.