CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Case of two crimes and two varying verdicts

The Supreme Court upholding death sentences against four men who gang raped and killed a girl on a bus in 2012 has been widely welcomed. But it has also raised questions about whether the award of death penalty in the Nirbhaya case was more the outcome of collective outrage and social media spotlight.

Just a day earlier, the Bombay High Court rejected the CBI’s plea for awarding the death sentence in the Bilkis Bano case, where the victim Bano was gang-raped during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, and 14 of her family members were murdered. The court upheld the life sentence verdict.

Brinda Karat, former General Secretary, All India Democratic Women’s Association, lauded the ruling in the Nirbhaya case saying the description of the crime as “demonic” by the Supreme Court was fitting and awarding the highest punishment was right.

“However, as a party, we are against the death penalty. One key reason is that it can be arbitrary. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has upheld the dealth penalty, but on the other the Bombay High Court has denied the same in the Bilkis Bano case. There is a question on the fairness of it. They were both horrific crimes.”

A similar sentiment was echoed by a Mumbai-based professional who said: “The trajectory of the two cases is so stark. The Bilkis Bano case has not grabbed as much attention as the Nirbhaya case, which has seen such a swift culmination.

“In just four-and-half years justice was served to Nirbhaya’s family members, while it took 15 years for Bano.” He added that while the highest punishment in the Nirbhaya case was just, the fact that two crimes of equal magnitude did not get equal punishment was a sore point for him.

“The verdict in the two cases feels unfair. It makes me wonder if the sensation generated by one case impacted the judgment. Should victims (of any crime) be able to generate a social media debate to get swift justice?” asks Swati Verma, a Delhi University student.

Concerns have also been expressed over the fact that the nearly-adult juvenile accused in the Nirbhaya has been free for nearly a year-and-half now. The accused, now 22, was released in December 2015, after serving three years in a reform facility. Swati Verma feels the law should be amended to try juveniles as adults in cases of heinous crimes.

Tanvi Arora, an advertising professional based out of Gurgaon, said the verdict feels like an isolated ruling and does not address the issues women continue to face.

“I think it’s a relief that the case has been concluded and appropriate punishment has been pronounced by the Supreme Court. However, one stern message to the nation is not the solution to the core issue. “We need to ensure safety to women through a sustained programme that sensitises men. Reformation happens through sustained effort, not landmark judgments,” she said.

COMMENT NOW