Editorial*

Introduction

The sentencing of female offenders is a contentious issue; primarily on account of claims of leniency in consideration of social and cultural biases. In ‘The Criminality of Women’, Otto Polak discusses the same in his chivalry hypothesis, which explains how representatives of the judicial system find it difficult to criminalise women and impose on them adequate sentences which they would have ideally imposed on their male counterparts for the exact offences. 

In India, these biases seem to arise out of a traditionalist view of women as “the foundation of a family” with pious and moral duties. In the Registrar General v. Mallika alias Lakshmi (2012), K.D. Kempamma became the first woman to be awarded a death sentence in Independent India, however, the same was later commuted to a life sentence, despite recognition of the purely financial motivation. The reasoning behind such a commutation arose out of the view that the accused’s gender was actually a mitigating factor in her favour. Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmala Devi (2017), the accused’s role as a mother became a mitigating factor.

A facet of this bias that seemingly goes overlooked is that such a traditionalist view often serves to imprison female offenders further, literally and metaphorically. The bias in question arises out of a traditionalist view of women by the judiciary, and actually serves to act as an aggravating factor in cases where deviations from such a view are seen. The same can be observed in the Otto Polak’s evil woman hypothesis. As per the same, coupled with chivalry are expectations from the woman of filling the stereotypical roles prescribed for her by the society. The obeisance or transgression of such rules end up deciding the extent of compassion that such a woman perpetrator will end up receiving. 
Such a bias can be substantiated by a comparative analysis of  Shabnam v. State of U.P. (2015), where the Trial Court held that “of all the crimes that shook the souls of men, none has ever been held in greater abhorrence than parricide.” Yet, in Susheel Sharma v. NCT Delhi (2013), the Supreme Court chose to commute the death sentence for an accused who murdered his wife and then cut her body into pieces and burnt it to destroy the evidence.

Role and Portrayal of Greeshma’s Character in the Sharon Sentencing Judgement

In the Sharon murder case, a similar lapse in judgement can be noted. The case involved the poisoning of 23-year-old Sharon Raj by his girlfriend, Greeshma, in October 2022. Greeshma laced an Ayurvedic drink with paraquat, leading to Sharon’s death from organ failure. In January 2025, she was sentenced to death for premeditated murder, while her uncle received three years for destroying evidence. Greeshma has appealed her conviction in the Kerala High Court.

The judgment in the Sharon Raj murder case heavily emphasizes Greeshma’s sexual history, portraying her as manipulative for having relationships with both Sharon and her fiancé. Statements like “she cleverly pretended love and enticed after offering sex” (¶386)  reinforce stereotypes of women using sex as a weapon, a scrutiny rarely applied to male perpetrators. Similarly, the court paints Sharon as an innocent victim, highlighting Greeshma’s “breach of trust” (¶11) as especially egregious, while such language is seldom used when men deceive women.

Furthermore, the judgment describes Greeshma with phrases like “devilish thought” (¶388) and “cunningly and deceptively abducting,” (¶14) invoking the trope of the scheming femme fatale. It also overlooks Sharon’s alleged blackmail, failing to consider emotional abuse as a relevant factor. A more gender-neutral approach would recognize the power dynamics at play rather than reinforcing outdated stereotypes about women as deceivers and men as helpless victims.

Inconsistencies with the R.G. Kar Judgement

Another case, decided on the same date suffers from a similar yet different fallacy. While at first glance, the R.G. Kar judgement’s failure to take into account gender sensitivity is not as harmful as the overt gender bias demonstrated in Greeshma’s case, it ends having a simillar result – complete justice not being meted out.

On the night of August 8th to 9th, 2024, a 31-year old female doctor was raped and murdered in the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata.  The victim’s body was discovered at 9:30 AM the following morning, bleeding from wounds in various parts of the body. The incident sent shockwaves through the country, with nationwide protests and widespread allegations of a faulty investigation, and controversy over the Police and Hospital management’s conduct, on August 9th, Sanjoy Roy, a thirty-three year old Kolkata Police Civic Volunteer, was arrested and charged under Sections 64, 66 and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”).

On January 20th, 2025, the Sealdah Criminal Court convicted the accused under Sections 64, 66 and 103(1). Notably, despite demands for the death penalty, the court sentenced Roy to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. Appeals seeking the death penalty were soon filed before the High Court by both the State Government and the CBI.

The court’s judgement mentions that the victim’s “vulnerability during the attack highlights the predatory nature of the crime and the perpetrator’s exploitation of an unequal power dynamic.” (p.164) It decries the crime as “a brutal act” for which there is no “apparent justification or explanation.” (p.165)  It is striking that similar terminology was used in the Nirbhaya case where the Apex Court used words such as “unthinkable and sadistic pleasure, bestial proclivity and inconceivable self-obsession” (¶1, per Dipak Misra J.) to describe the rape and murder. The results in each case, however, were very different. The R.G. Kar judgement condemns the act in unequivocal terms yet refrains from imposing the death penalty on a mere justification that an eye for an eye is not applicable in the modern world, coupled with no criminal antecedents on part of the convict. This highlights the failure of the court to treat the case with adequate sensitivity. Despite giving every indication that the death penalty would be imposed, the judgement takes a sudden turn, on grounds that are arguably weaker, to spare the convict the hangman’s noose. While not biased per se, this failure highlights a flawed approach to a case where gender sensitivity is unquestionably important.

Conclusion

In conclusion, these two judgements represent a deep-rooted fallacy of gender bias. While this bias is more apparent in the Sharon Raj case, where the judge takes an overt stance against Greeshma based on certain preconceived notions and stereotypes, the fallacy in the R.G. Kar case is more subtle but equally problematic, with the judge giving less credit to the case for a death penalty when it was due, representing a failure to look at the case through a more gender sensitive lens. The need of the hour is to combat such bias, whether overt or covert.

*This piece was authored by Adrian Aju Thomas, Hrishav Dasgupta, Niranjan Erat, and Ananya Unnikrishnan. They are second-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) students at The National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi, and they are Junior Editors of the NUALS Law Journal.

The inspiration for this piece came from Gokul Kalpadrumam Sunoj, a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at The National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi, and a former Senior Editor of the NUALS Law Journal.