<div><span>The conviction of the accused persons in two cases of rape, which have attracted nationwide attention, in Mumbai and in Kochi is welcome. <br /><br />But there are some uncomfortable features in both cases, relating to the sentence awarded in the Mumbai case and the trial process in the Kochi case. <br /><br />A Mumbai sessions court sentenced to death three accused in the Shakti mills rape case of last year under IPC’s section 376(e), brought into law after the Delhi gang rape case. <br /></span><div> </div><div><span>The section, which prescribes death penalty for repeat offenders in rape cases, was invoked because three accused were found guilty of rape in another case also. </span></div><div> </div><div>The sentence is wrong in the first place because capital punishment is wrong in any type of case. <br /><br />Death sentence is barbaric and should have no place in a civilised society. Justice does not lie in the physical elimination of the wrong-doer. <br /></div><div><br />It is bad in principle and ineffective in practice; it has not been a deterrent against crime. The IPC amendment which prescribed death sentence for rape was excessive and aberrant. <br /><br /></div><div>The trial judge’s interpretation of the provision is also suspect. <br /><br />A strong legal view is that a second offence should attract action under the provision only if it is committed after conviction in the first case. <br /><br />The offences cannot also be considered to be the rarest of rare and so the section and its application in the case may not satisfy the Supreme Court’s norms. <br /></div><div><br />An observation made by the trial judge is particularly unacceptable. The judge said that the accused do not have the potential for reformation. <br /></div><div><br />Such a wrong and negative view should not form part of a system of justice, and the judge’s subjective assessment should not have influenced the judgment. <br /><br /></div><div>Any person has the chance and potential to reform at any stage in life. In any case, should a person who does not or cannot reform be hanged to death? <br /></div><div><br />A life term in jail would have served the ends of justice in the Shakti mills case. </div><div> </div><div>In the Suryanelli case, justice finally prevailed when the court convicted 24 persons who had sexually exploited a school girl, and sent them to jail. <br /><br />But the course of justice had many twists and turns, and it took 18 years for the guilty to be brought to book. <br /><br />At one stage, they had even been acquitted. Such narrow misses and long delays do not strengthen the system of justice.</div></div>
<div><span>The conviction of the accused persons in two cases of rape, which have attracted nationwide attention, in Mumbai and in Kochi is welcome. <br /><br />But there are some uncomfortable features in both cases, relating to the sentence awarded in the Mumbai case and the trial process in the Kochi case. <br /><br />A Mumbai sessions court sentenced to death three accused in the Shakti mills rape case of last year under IPC’s section 376(e), brought into law after the Delhi gang rape case. <br /></span><div> </div><div><span>The section, which prescribes death penalty for repeat offenders in rape cases, was invoked because three accused were found guilty of rape in another case also. </span></div><div> </div><div>The sentence is wrong in the first place because capital punishment is wrong in any type of case. <br /><br />Death sentence is barbaric and should have no place in a civilised society. Justice does not lie in the physical elimination of the wrong-doer. <br /></div><div><br />It is bad in principle and ineffective in practice; it has not been a deterrent against crime. The IPC amendment which prescribed death sentence for rape was excessive and aberrant. <br /><br /></div><div>The trial judge’s interpretation of the provision is also suspect. <br /><br />A strong legal view is that a second offence should attract action under the provision only if it is committed after conviction in the first case. <br /><br />The offences cannot also be considered to be the rarest of rare and so the section and its application in the case may not satisfy the Supreme Court’s norms. <br /></div><div><br />An observation made by the trial judge is particularly unacceptable. The judge said that the accused do not have the potential for reformation. <br /></div><div><br />Such a wrong and negative view should not form part of a system of justice, and the judge’s subjective assessment should not have influenced the judgment. <br /><br /></div><div>Any person has the chance and potential to reform at any stage in life. In any case, should a person who does not or cannot reform be hanged to death? <br /></div><div><br />A life term in jail would have served the ends of justice in the Shakti mills case. </div><div> </div><div>In the Suryanelli case, justice finally prevailed when the court convicted 24 persons who had sexually exploited a school girl, and sent them to jail. <br /><br />But the course of justice had many twists and turns, and it took 18 years for the guilty to be brought to book. <br /><br />At one stage, they had even been acquitted. Such narrow misses and long delays do not strengthen the system of justice.</div></div>
