The country is seriously debating on the righteousness of hanging a person whatsoever the crime is and howsoever serious it is. Dhananjoy Chatterjee  raped and brutally murdered 14-year-old school girl Hetal Parekh at her Kolkata residence in Bhawanipur area on March 5, 1990. In January 1994, the Calcutta high court sentenced Dhananjoy Chatterjee to be hanged until death for raping and then murdering teenager Hetal Parekh. The Supreme Court later confirmed the sentence. Ten years after the order was passed, and after the West Bengal Governor early this month rejected the application for reducing his punishment, he was to be hanged at the Alipur Central Jail in Kolkata on Friday, June 25. There are objections from human rights groups and prominent personalities who oppose capital punishment. Meanwhile, friends, relatives, even some jail inmates have petitioned President A P J Abdul Kalam and pleaded that Chatterjee's death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment. The President stayed the June 25 hanging of Dhananjoy and ordered the Home Ministry to review the punishment. The status as of today is that the case had gone out of the purview of even the Apex Court as the President of India has seized of the matter under Article 72 of the Constitution which allows him to grant clemency to the person who has been ordered to be hanged.

The social activities who are shouting against capital punishment argue that life sentence is not going to prevent such crimes and in the name of law, we should not repeat the crime what the accused has committed. On the surface of it, taking life from any creatures is against humanity, one should also ponder about the possibility that nothing short of a severe punishment would help in sending right signals to the society. It is very difficult to take sides on either side on such issues. However, when this author posed a challenge of to himself to take an unequivocal stance, a complete balance sheet of rights and wrongs were tabulated. Based on this balance sheet, this author pleads the Honourable President of India not to  below  his  dignity  to  consider  the  clemency plea.

Not harming anyone is the definition of humanity. But we should not invoke humanitarian reasons to criminals who have violated the set norms of humanity. On this logic, the social activists and Human rights activist must have challenged the Indian Government whenever it retaliated the attack of Pakistan - a civilized war (oxymoron) or whenever we shot down the terrorists. The activists must have demonstrated against BJP leaders who in 1992 indirectly insinuated the murders of hundreds of people all over the country. The activists should have protested and campaigned against Modi's of the modern Hindutva India for what happened in Gujarat. The very same activists who justify the clemency to Dhananjoy in spite of the fact that he eliminated a young girl from this world for his momentary and lewd sexual pleasure, should ask for legal status for raping. It is not an emotional statement as one can justify (on the same logic that has been put forth to give Dhananjoy an undeserving life) that on humanitarian ground women should come forward to help those men who crave for flesh and sex by being their object of sex and in this process if needed give up their lives too (because this is what Hetal has to
undergo against her will).

Not punishing a person with life imprisonment is an idealistic view. In a world which is unfair with too many criminal activities, this idealism would not work. Instead we should work towards preventing such crimes in the first place. If we can not stop crimes, we do not have any moral authority to try and stop the punishment as is to be meted out to Dhananjoy. Otherwise we are sending bad signals to the demons of his breed. Rape is a serious offence and raping a minor is even more hidious. Not only did Dhananjoy raped Hetal but also killed her.

I read somewhere the following words: "My appeal to all of you is to look at the whole thing a little more benevolently. If death has to be answered with death, our planet would be one bloody place, unworthy of living. I am sure all of you fellow human beings agree to that". It is true that death can not be answered with another death but how do we make sure that such dastardly and ghastly crimes do not recur. If it was a crime of rape and Hetal is alive today, I would ask Hetal to cut his penis in public. Since it is also a murder, one should not consider any request for pardon on humanitarian ground. Mr. President, It is Below Your Dignity to Consider the Clemency Plea. Such Ghastly crimes do not deserve Clemency from the Honourabe President. The President must show to the country men that he is not only simple, humble, and modest but also very strict when it comes to discipline and sticking to law. I request the President not to be swayed by the emotional appeal from various quarters.

The pardoning of such inhuman crimes would prove to be an indirect approval of  such dastardly crimes. What does our law say as punishment for a murder? If it is hanging unto death, why is there a provision for clemency in our Constitution? Are we not inconsistent and contradicting ourselves? If the law is Supreme, President may be given the power to verify whether the legal procedures are followed by letter and spirit and whether all evidences are conclusively proves that the accused had done the crime. However, no single person on this democracy should be given the right or power to supercede the judgement pronounced as per the law. If we do not agree to a law (in this case it is capital punishment), let there be a referendum in the country and let us change the Constitution if we agree as a nation to revoke it (either doing away with the Capital punishment or Article 72 of the Constitution). But the death penalty should not be carried out as per the final will of the President of the day and then it becomes very subjective.