The murder of a young television production executive, Neeraj Grover, in May 2008, had shocked the country, and the trial court judgment which has just become available appears to be no less shocking. The circumstances attending on the tragedy had lent themselves to sensation, especially since the episode appeared to suggest a

ménage à trois with which were associated a Kannada actress, Maria Susairaj, and a young naval officer, Emile Jerome, besides the murdered executive. For the city of Mumbai, there were reminders in this of the Nanavati affair of the 1960s which had also involved glamorous individuals, and indeed later became the subject of a motion picture. But in the Nanavati case, the broad sense was that justice had been done. In the present instance, however, many who have followed the details are apt to be seized with dismay about the verdict as well as the sentencing, even if allowances are to be made for inadequate evidence gathering by the police and a less than energetic case constructed by the prosecution. There are other striking departures from the story of Commander Nanavati. The submarine officer had shot dead the paramour of his wife, the mother of his two children, in his own drawing room and driven straight to the police to confess to the crime. In sharp contrast, in the Grover-Maria-Jerome affair, the murdered man was chopped up into hundreds of pieces after he was stabbed and allowed to bleed to death, and then the mutilated parts transported to a forest area for disposal. There was on display extreme cruelty and a flagrant effort at concealment.
For ordinary observers, this would fall in the category of “rarest of rare” as far as murders go. In instances of this nature, judges seldom hesitate to pronounce stiff punishments on grounds of the gruesomeness of the murder. However, the judicial officer who presided over the trial has held the tragic event to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and not straightforward murder, which either warrants the death penalty or sentencing for life. In the opinion of the court, the prosecution failed to establish that the act of killing — although it had characteristics of a depraved sensibility — was premeditated. Our legal system is required to be clear if premeditation, or conspiracy, must be necessary conditions for the award of the maximum sentence in a murder case. The requirement for evidence has also permitted many to get away. Law experts and jurisprudence specialists do not hesitate to accept in private that the Evidence Act, coming down from the colonial era, needs to be broadened. Some of these issues are likely to acquire relevance when the prosecution approaches the Bombay high court. Ironically, Susairaj and Jerome are also said to be discontented with the verdict and desire to appeal. This is an irony. The killer — apparently Jerome — believes that the sentence of 10 years in prison is too stiff. Susairaj was convicted for destruction of evidence and handed a three-year jail term. She apparently thinks that she ought not to have been convicted.
The grisly crime is likely to place an unusual burden on the judge who presides over the matter in the high court. But if the law is not to be perceived as an ass, it has to be considered if there are gaps in the story, or in the compilation of evidence. The time of death appears to be of importance here. Was it during or prior to the arrival of Jerome on the scene? Was the late Grover lured to his death by being invited to Susairaj’s residence in a friendly manner? Do all crimes of passion — if this was one — pass the test of not being premeditated acts? The questions will be many as the country is watching.