Talk time: Maria Susairaj addresses a press conference after her release from jail

The chief public prosecutor in the Neeraj Grover murder case which had the nation glued to television channels recently can’t wait to lay his hands on the full judgment and other court documents. “Once we get the documents, we will need a day or two to study them and then we will head to the high court,” says R.V. Kini, smarting under public criticism that he couldn’t get the accused sentenced for murder.

Indeed, there has been tremendous public and media outrage over the Mumbai sessions court verdict on the Neeraj Grover murder case which saw one accused walk free and another sentenced to just 10 years’ imprisonment. The court found Kannada actress Maria Susairaj guilty of having destroyed evidence and gave her three years’ rigorous imprisonment. But she was released as she had already spent the time in jail. The other accused, Emile Jerome, was held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and was sentenced to a 10-year jail term.

The verdict was a blow to the prosecution, which had charged that Neeraj Grover, a creative director with a television production company, was murdered by Jerome and Susairaj in May, 2008, after which his body was mutilated and burnt. While it had sought that both be found guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the court found Jerome guilty only of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and punished him under IPC Section 304 (Part-I). The latter states, “Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine...”

Many are calling the verdict a travesty of justice. “I have no doubt in my mind that it was a clear case of murder and both deserved tougher punishments,” says Sushil Shinde, a lawyer and a civil rights activist. Shinde says that the government should take a relook at the laws on homicide and amend them according to the changing times.

So do we really need to amend our laws so that people like Susairaj and Jerome — who chopped up Grover’s corpse after his murder — do not slip through the cracks in the system and get off with what the public is calling “light” punishments?

Perhaps not. Most legal experts point out that crimes committed in the “heat of passion” cannot be put in the same category as pre-meditated murders. In a similar case, the Bombay High Court in 2008 set aside the life term awarded to Gajanan Marathe of Yavatmal district in Maharashtra. Marathe had killed a man who was having an affair with his wife.

Though a lower court sentenced him to life imprisonment, the high court invoked Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC and ruled that it was not a case of murder, as it was committed in the “heat of passion’’. The court reduced the life term and sentenced Marathe to 10 years’ imprisonment instead.

Section 300 of the IPC, which is about the definition of murder, talks about four “exceptions” when “culpable homicide cannot be a murder”. And Exception 4 says that “culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” In such cases it is immaterial which party gives provocation or commits the first assault. Some advocates believe that in his detailed judgment, the judge in the Grover murder case will probably invoke Exception 4 of Section 300.

The Supreme Court too is known to have commuted the sentence of those who committed a crime in the heat of passion. In the Byvarapu Raju vs State of Andhra Pradesh case, for example, the lower courts had sentenced the accused under Section 302. But the apex court found him guilty under the less severe Section 304 — the same law under which Emile Jerome has been sentenced.

Hence, many lawyers feel that the outrage over the Neeraj Grover verdict is unwarranted. “Those who are calling the Neeraj Grover murder case verdict a travesty of justice clearly don’t understand the law. They are reacting emotionally. If one looks at the case logically, the judge probably gave the benefit of doubt to the accused as it has always been and should always be the case with criminal jurisprudence,” says A.J. Bhambhani, a Delhi High Court advocate.

But not all agree with this assessment. “The benefit of doubt couldn’t have been extended to the accused as there was no remorse from the people involved in the murder,” says Sushan Kunjuraman, a Mumbai-based human rights activist and lawyer.

Bhambhani feels that if there has to be a change in any law after this case, it should be Section 201, which is on “causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen the offender.” According to this section, if it is invoked in a case which is “punishable with imprisonment for life… or with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years”, and the person is found guilty under it, the maximum prison term could be three years. (Susairaj was found guilty under this section.)

“There should be some difference between a person washing blood stains from his car after running over someone and a person chopping up the body and then burning it. The law needs an amendment here,” concedes Bhambhani.

According to him, the judge may have wanted to give Susairaj a stiffer sentence, but his “hands were tied” by the existing law. And cases will not be decided on what people think, he adds, but according to the law. “I would say that everybody has to just cool down, sit back and relax, and let the courts do their job.”

Others, however, feel that the Neeraj Grover case could trigger a reassessment of some of our criminal laws. “I have no doubt that the result would be different once this case is challenged in the high court,” says criminal lawyer Majeed Memon.

Public prosecutor Kini too would be hoping for that.