Last night, an acquaintance asked me, "Do you think the Court's ruling in the Neeraj Grover case was a fair decision?"
This post is inspired by that question. Hollywood will tell you time and again that Law and Justice were two different things. Demi Moore and Tom Cruise argued about it in the classic 'A Few Good Men'. Erin Brockovich did that, too. This sad thought is more than fiction. And these films were based on true stories.
The Neeraj Grover case is a perfect case in point. Going by the legalities, it is the correct decision. Has justice been served? Perhaps not. What most people miss is that the verdict can be challenged. Even the judge who pronounced it would have hoped for that. Then perhaps the evidence can be more direct and substantial, after carrying out a more detailed investigation. Trying on circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence, is always tricky, and often disappointing.
My acquaintance further argued if showing those "gruesome" pictures in the media was fair; and that Maria Susairaj was equally guilty, so why was she released.
There's an unspoken horror in seeing a human personality reduced to huge chunks of flesh. Dexter's TRP rides on that. So it is a safe way to secure national antipathy towards criminals.
Maria Susairaj cannot be counted in the same league as her fiancé, Emily Jerome, because she did not commit the "act" of murder. She helped her fiancé get rid of the evidence; she was protecting him. That's another thing. She helped her lover get rid of the evidence. She also spent three years in jail. Maria Susairaj can be accused of cheating on her fiancé, betrayal, having a corrupt moral compass, obstruction of justice, but she can't be charged with murder.
This post is inspired by that question. Hollywood will tell you time and again that Law and Justice were two different things. Demi Moore and Tom Cruise argued about it in the classic 'A Few Good Men'. Erin Brockovich did that, too. This sad thought is more than fiction. And these films were based on true stories.
The Neeraj Grover case is a perfect case in point. Going by the legalities, it is the correct decision. Has justice been served? Perhaps not. What most people miss is that the verdict can be challenged. Even the judge who pronounced it would have hoped for that. Then perhaps the evidence can be more direct and substantial, after carrying out a more detailed investigation. Trying on circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence, is always tricky, and often disappointing.
My acquaintance further argued if showing those "gruesome" pictures in the media was fair; and that Maria Susairaj was equally guilty, so why was she released.
There's an unspoken horror in seeing a human personality reduced to huge chunks of flesh. Dexter's TRP rides on that. So it is a safe way to secure national antipathy towards criminals.
Maria Susairaj cannot be counted in the same league as her fiancé, Emily Jerome, because she did not commit the "act" of murder. She helped her fiancé get rid of the evidence; she was protecting him. That's another thing. She helped her lover get rid of the evidence. She also spent three years in jail. Maria Susairaj can be accused of cheating on her fiancé, betrayal, having a corrupt moral compass, obstruction of justice, but she can't be charged with murder.
Why was Emily Jerome sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and not death or imprisonment for life?
This was not a premeditated murder, hence he wasn't charged under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, the court convicted Jerome under section 304 (Part I) for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Now that's quite a mouthful for people who don't know the law. And I can't help but quote section 304 to everyone:
(Sorry, but this is interesting.)
[...] Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death ,but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
So Jerome did not intend to kill Neeraj. This changes everything.
Maria Susairaj is a Kannada actress (well the news papers are certainly saying so). She comes to Mumbai to try her luck in Bollywood. She met TV producer Neeraj Grover, and in her own words she admitted to her lover, Emily Jerome, that he had a crush on her, albeit she didn't feel the same way for Grover. Now this is discomforting to Jerome. In this age where trust is just a scary word and the reason for 80% of insecurity in our lives, Jerome is not too happy with the equation, but decides to support Susairaj's decision of moving to Mumbai, anyway.
She shifts to an apartment in Malad. Neeraj shows up at her place, one night. Maria lets him in. Jerome, who's in the Naval Base in Kochi, calls her up casually. He probably hears a male voice in the background and asks Maria what's going on. She tells him that Neeraj is here to help her with her moving in the apartment. Jerome's uncomfortable, but insists that she shouldn't allow Neeraj to stay the night. Maria says she won't. But she does.
Early that morning, Jerome shows up at her apartment, much to Maria's surprise and Neeraj's shock. Jerome finds Neeraj naked in his girlfriend's apartment, with whom he hopes to get engaged in two months. Both men argue, and in a fit of rage, Jerome ends up stabbing Neeraj.
Detailed version of the last moments leading up to this murder are here.
It is important to know the reason for a crime. That is what distinguishes people: their innermost selves, their fear, their perception. And this is a crude reflection of society, its values and its culture. This is an age where morality has broken down. The same break down has caused the global financial crisis. If a woman is in love with a man, and supposed to be engaged with him, how would she justify sleeping with another man. Notwithstanding the fact that in Bollywood sexual lobbying is a passport to success.
May be there are men who would remain calm when they catch their women with a naked man. May be.
But Jerome's crime was an act of passion.
And am not trying to justify or protect or thrash Maria or Jerome or Grover.
It is not just about murder, but the reason behind it as well. Today we see moral breakdown everywhere. It's OK to be greedy, to have casual sex, to pretend to be in love when its lust. The result will be gruesome. The society has to pay the price for what it warrants.
Thanks for the detailed information on the murder as well as Section 304.
ReplyDeletevery detailed info regarding grover case and thanks for mentioning the difference between the section 302 and section 304
ReplyDeletevery well penned. both the detailed information and legal clarification and also your own remarks are nicely written.
ReplyDeletejust two things from an editor's point of view. one, is A Few Good Men a true story like Erin Brokovich? you seemed to say so.
two, it will be it's and not its in 'to pretend to be in love when its lust'.
Postscript:
the CrPC section you quoted was funny: "if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death ,but without any intention to cause death"
contractictory, confusing piece. it kinda implies that i am killing a person by mistake because although i knew i might kill him by doing what i did to him, i am also crossing my fingers and hoping he doesn't die and if he dies it is like unintentional killing. if i know my action can kill him, then how can the killing be unintentional unless i am actually doing doublethink. there is some lacuane here.
@D4doppleganger
ReplyDeleteWell it is the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and not Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The demarcation out here is something only lawyers or psychologists will understand. The difference is about a fraction of human emotion, i.e. a crime committed in passion. At that time, a person acts out of anger, and yes, he intends to cause harm. In nano-seconds, he commits the act. But it was not pre-meditated. Which means, he had not carefully planned and plotted for the killing of another human being. The law recognizes the difference between these two acts, and therefore different punishments are meted out for the respective crime.
In that case use the word 'premeditated' and not word like 'intention'. I can understand the difference as you pointed out. when i quoted that particular segement out of the portion you quoted, i wished to point out that it says "if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death ,but without any intention to cause death". how can knowledge exist that act can kill and yet the act be performed without wish to kill. Was watchinh 'Unfaithful' yesterday and the section quoted here applies there. I understand what is tried to be stated by the law. I dont understand the idea how can the human mind not know that it can killl by doing what he is doing when there is a high probability that what he is doing can kill. It is as if the probability of killing which i am aware of, is shut down by the other portion of the ind that orders the body to perform the act that kills. You are right about it being in the alley of the psycho;ogists. then it is a case of conscious, subconscious and unconscious which have not beeen alluded in the law. my point, in a nutshell, is that the language needs to be more specific and not vague for an act which is already a subtle and psychological thing like 'a crime of passion'.
ReplyDeleteThe word "intention" is used by the law; in fact the entire italics are directly quoted from the Indian Penal Code. The language is fine. Most lawyers understand the meaning and the purview. That's the reason they need lawyers, I guess.
ReplyDelete