Why punishments are different
Dr G V Rao
(Querist) 13 July 2011
This query is : Resolved
The circumstances leading to the murder and later destruction of evidence in Grover case and Tandoor case of 1995 are similar. In the Tandoor case too their was a love triangle, suspicion of one over the other, murder in a fit of anger and attempted destruction of evidence. In Tandoor case atleast the dead body was not cut brutally but tried to be burnt off. In the present Grover case the killing was more brutal and unparalleled. However in Tandoor case the final judgement was death sentence but in Grover murder case the main accused is sentenced to 10 years jail term as he was 'guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. The co-accused in Tandoor case Mr Keshav Kumar was granted a sentence of 7 years RI but Maria in Grover Case got only 3 years and later let off since the time was commuted. Both Keshav and Maria attempted to destroy evidence after murder. It makes me wonder as to why the punishments are so different when the circumstances are similar. Experts may please clarify.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 13 July 2011
First difference that would come to mind is that while in the Grover case, the accused came face to face with the victim when he was in the company of his girl friend, that was not the casein Tandoor matter. The accused killed the victim when she was alone. There was no sudden provocation. Grover case is being compared to the infamous Nanavati's case.
Dr G V Rao
(Querist) 13 July 2011
In Tandoor case too their was sudden provocation when accused checked the telephone calls made by victim to her friend. It was not preplanned.
PARTHA P BORBORA
(Expert) 13 July 2011
TO WARRENT A CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL CASE, THE PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH THE CASE BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DAUBT. BUT SOME TIME THE INVESTIGATING AGENCY MAY NOT INVESTIGATE THE CASE IN THE PROPER WAY AND IN THAT SITUATION PROSECUTION FAILS. SOMETIMES THE COURT CAN NOT PRONOUNCE A PROPER PUNISHMENT FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE. IF THE PROSECUTION FAILS TO PROVE A CULPABLE HOMICIDE, A COURT OF LAW CAN NOT PRONOUNCE A PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE. AND IF IT APPEARS FROM THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE THAT IT COMES UNDER CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER, COURT CAN NOT PRONOUNCE A CONVICTION FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER.MORE OVER EACH AND EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT AND SO THE PUNISHMENTS MAY DIFFER.
