On the morning of January 20, anticipation filled the courtroom in Kerala’s Thiruvananthapuram district as the verdict was about to be delivered in the case where 24-year-old Greeshma was accused of poisoning and murdering her boyfriend, Sharon.
Dr. Shimon Raj and his family, who had spent two years seeking justice for his slain brother, found themselves escorted to front-row seats by police officials amidst a packed courtroom. The crime had left Raj’s family devastated.
As the judge prepared to deliver the verdict, Raj recalled the toll the case had taken on his family. "My father has high blood pressure and suffered a stroke in May 2024 from the stress of my brother’s death," he said.
Moments later, Greeshma was sentenced to death, while her uncle Nirmala received three years in prison for his involvement.
The same day, thousands of kilometers away in West Bengal, a family awaited justice for their daughter, a junior doctor at RG Kar Medical College, who had been raped and murdered in August 2024. While they hoped for the death penalty, they had already sensed that it might not go their way. "I remember on January 18 when the judge pronounced Sanjoy Roy guilty, he had said, ‘You had asked for justice, and I tried,’" the doctor’s father recalled.
On January 20, the Sealdah court sentenced Roy to life in prison.
For Shimon Raj’s family, the death penalty brought closure. The family in Kolkata felt that the verdict on their daughter’s rape and murder case didn’t bring them the justice they had imagined. Their contrasting experiences raise a difficult question: Is the death penalty truly justice? While human and civil rights activists have long opposed capital punishment, families of victims of heinous crimes often see it as the only fitting retribution.
The Great Death Penalty Debate
India’s tryst with the death penalty has evolved over the years. Even as two-thirds of countries globally have abolished capital punishment, India remains one of the few that still retains it. In 2021, India voted against a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution on the death penalty.
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the new criminal law, the number of offenses punishable by death has increased from 12 to 18. Despite Supreme Court guidelines, lower courts continue to impose the death penalty, while constitutional and appellate courts are more restrained in affirming capital punishment. This disparity has contributed to the high number of prisoners on death row.
In fact, according to the the latest annual report released by National Law University’s Project 39A, an advocacy group that works on issues surrounding capital punishment, trial courts across the country imposed the death penalty 139 times bringing the death row population to 564 - an all-time high.
According to the 2024 report released on February 11, 2025 high courts across the country confirmed death sentences for nine prisoners in nine cases - the highest in a single calender year since 2019. The Supreme Court did not confirm a single death sentence for the second year in a row while commuting capital punishment to life for four out of five prisoners whose appeals were heard in 2024, commuting death sentences for two prisoners in review appeals and acquitting one.
The Arbitrariness Of Death Penalty
Sunil Gupta, a former jailor in Delhi, has observed the evolution of capital punishment in India over the decades. "In the early years post-independence, the death penalty was frequently awarded, particularly in high-profile cases where public pressure was intense. The more prominent the victim, the greater the likelihood of capital punishment," he told BOOM.
Gupta, co-author of Black Warrant with journalist Sunetra Choudhury, recently saw his book adapted into a Netflix series, where he was portrayed by Zahan Kapoor. Gupta said over the years law and sensibilities have evolved. “The 1980 Supreme Court ruling in Bachan Singh limited the scope of the death penalty, introducing the 'rarest of rare' doctrine. Later, the Machhi Singh case laid out parameters to determine when capital punishment should be considered," he explained.
He reflected on historical cases, stating, "Take Nathuram Godse’s trial. If it were held today, under current legal frameworks, he would likely not have been sentenced to death." Gupta emphasised the role of legal representation in determining the fate of convicts. "Access to good legal aid often determines whether a person faces execution or escapes it. Most death row inmates come from lower economic backgrounds, unable to afford competent legal counsel. Those who can afford skilled lawyers tend to avoid the gallows."
Drawing a comparison between two cases, Gupta contrasted the legal representation in the Indira Gandhi assassination case with the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape case. "Indira Gandhi’s assassins had Ram Jethmalani as their lawyer, and they were spared the death penalty. In contrast, Nirbhaya’s convicts, lacking quality legal defense, were all hanged," he pointed out.
The recent convictions in the Greeshma-Sharon Raj murder and the RG Kar rape-murder case further illustrate the inconsistencies in how capital punishment is applied. "While these cases seem similar, no two cases are identical. Several factors influence legal proceedings, including the convict’s background, legal defense, and trial conditions," noted Chiara Sangiorgio, Policy Advisor at Amnesty International.
Sangiorgio warned against making policy decisions based on public emotions. "The death penalty is often tied to heinous crimes, but justice cannot be driven by vengeance or political motivations," she cautioned.
Death Penalty As Political Tool
Advocate Stuti Rai highlighted the contentious nature of capital punishment, stating, "Even among legal professionals, opinions on its validity and feasibility are divided. Public discourse appears dominated by those strongly advocating for executions."
While political parties like the DMK have pushed for abolition, no consensus exists on its morality or constitutionality. "Despite studies proving its ineffectiveness as a deterrent, capital punishment remains in our statutes because it serves as a politically expedient tool," she remarked.
Referring to the West Bengal government's response to the RG Kar rape case, where the state assembly passed the Aparajita Woman and Child (West Bengal Criminal Laws Amendment) Bill, 2024–which introduces the death penalty for five offences of rape among other amendments including a time-bound probe, fast track courts and a special task force–Rai noted, "Political leaders often use capital punishment to appease the public, despite its lack of proven deterrence."
Maitryi Misra, Director of the Death Penalty Mitigation Team at Project 39A, echoed similar concerns. "Public opinion cannot be the sole determinant of punishment prescribed by law. Governments should work to change public perception rather than justify capital punishment as a 'quick fix' for crime."
Misra emphasised the need for accessible, accurate information on the death penalty. "The narrative is often shaped by media portrayals rather than factual analysis. The mainstream discourse that the public supports the death penalty does not validate its effectiveness."
Does the Death Penalty Deliver Justice?
For some victims' families, the answer is an unequivocal yes. Dr. Shimon Raj, who lost his brother Sharon, the Kolkata father whose daughter was raped and murdered, believes execution brings closure. Similarly, 26/11 terror attack victim families and survivors Divya Salaskar and Devika Rotawan also view the death penalty as justice.
Salaskar, who lost her father Vijay Salaskar, a senior police officer, said, "Capital punishment provides a finality that life imprisonment lacks. There’s no guarantee a convict serving life won’t be released prematurely."
Rotawan, who was nine when she was shot during the attacks, recalled her emotions upon hearing Ajmal Kasab’s death sentence. "I was sad for what I lost, but there was relief and satisfaction in the verdict."
Dr. Raj acknowledged that Greeshma’s sentence might be commuted by higher courts but remains steadfast in his belief that execution is justified in his brother’s case. "She showed no remorse. Her gender and age should not factor into the justice she receives," he asserted.
While he agrees that studies suggest the death penalty lacks deterrence, he argued, "If executions are consistently carried out without commutations, perhaps the fear of death might serve as a deterrent."
Salaskar reinforced the idea that capital punishment is not just about setting an example but also about justice for victims. "Violent crimes leave families shattered. There needs to be certainty in punishment," she stressed.
However, the Kolkata parents who lost their daughter to rape have changed their mind. Post-verdict, they feel they got “half-justice” since Roy was the only accused who got convicted and sentenced to life. The victim’s parents are not supporting West Bengal and CBI’s plea for the death penalty before the Calcutta High Court because they want everyone involved in their daughter’s death to be brought to justice. "They believe that all those who are involved in the murder of their daughter need not be given capital punishment just because they killed her. They want the highest punishment as awarded by the trial court to the convict to stay," the victim’s parents told the media through their lawyer.
The Other Side of the Debate
Not all victims' families support the death penalty. Madhvi Vishwanathan, who lost her daughter Soumya in 2008, believes execution does not provide justice. "They should suffer as I do. Their death changes nothing," she said.
More than 15 years after Soumya’s murder, a Delhi court sentenced the convicts to double life imprisonment. "It took years, and the process was torturous, but it was the best judgment," she said. However, she was dismayed when the Supreme Court granted bail to the convicts in 2024. "I oppose their release," she stated firmly.
Activist Ruchira Gupta noted that many sexual assault survivors prioritize a speedy trial over severe punishment. "Justice delayed is justice denied. A timely conviction is more crucial than the severity of the sentence," she said.
Gupta personally opposes capital punishment, advocating instead for lifelong imprisonment with hard labor. "It (death penalty) hasn’t proven to be a deterrent. Additionally, harsher punishments might lead perpetrators to murder victims to eliminate witnesses," she explained.
Moving Beyond Retribution
Ruchira Gupta feels that we as a society are being “groomed for violence”. “We want quick-fix, knee-jerk solutions. We want more blood but we don’t want to do anything to solve the problem at the core. No one is talking about sorting the system. The anti-rape movement has been swept aside,” Gupta said.
Sunil Gupta argued that public outcry for immediate justice stems from frustration of a slow judicial process. “If trials were completed in a time-bound manner, people might be more accepting of life sentences over executions," he added while pointing out to the Western criminal systems where sentences extend for hundreds of years. "Inmates accept jail as their permanent home, contributing productively to society even while serving life sentences," he explained.
Reflecting on public sentiment, he linked the 2019 Hyderabad police encounter case to broader frustrations. That is why, though it (the encounter) was a murder on our criminal justice system, the crowd was happy. They got “justice,” he said.
Ultimately, closure is subjective. "For me, closure began when Kasab was executed," Salaskar admitted. "However, over time, I’ve come to think differently. Perhaps, if he had received life imprisonment with a truly harsh punishment, it might have sufficed."