10 October is observed as the world day against death penalty across the world. This event was started by the World Coalition against Death Penalty in 2003. The theme chosen for the year 2009 by the world coalition is educating the youngsters regarding death penalty.
India continues to be one of the minority nations which continues with death penalty and also carries out the executions. A look at some of the figures on death sentences show that in last 2 years the number of cases in which death sentence has been awarded by the lower courts have increased. Though the higher judiciary has over turned several death sentences and commuted them to life imprisonment, the trend is disturbing. Also in some of the recent cases the apex court has commuted the death sentences with the order that the person should not be released prematurely and also should not be given the benefits of parole and furlough. These directions are clearly invading decision making power of the government, wherein they would decide each individual case on its own merit whether to grant parole and furlough or not.
Though there have been no executions after Dhananjoy Chatterjee, the mercy petitions of the persons have been pending for decades and the fate of all the persons on death row hangs in balance.
There is also need for a comprehensive policy on sentencing in India. Today the penal code of the country tells what's the maximum or the minimum sentence for the crime, and all the discretion has been given to the judge. There are various factors that come into play and should be considered while sentencing a person. In the absence of a comprehensive sentencing policy all is left to the judiciary.
In the changing world wherein the Indian Government wants to play a major role in the south Asian region its high time that India follows the example of its neighbours like Nepal and abolishes death penalty at the earliest. In the present legal system, many a times the rich accused get away while the poor get convicted. The same is true about death sentence. Majority of the prisoners on death row are extremely poor.
Retaining death penalty and executing persons is against the basic values of a democratic nation.
India should lead by example in south east Asia and declare a moratorium on all the execution till the laws are amended and death penalty is abolished.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
26 year old man sentenced to death in 2 cases Kerala
Abolish the death penalty By I.A. Rehman Thursday, 08 Oct, 2009
Abolish the death penalty
By I.A. Rehman
Thursday, 08 Oct, 2009
Pakistan’s keenness to retain the death penalty for more than two dozen is totally indefensible. It was contrary to a growing worldwide trend in favour of abolition of the capital punishment. –File Photo
The World Day against the Death Penalty will be observed across the globe on Oct 10. And this time Pakistan will not be in the dock as a keen upholder of capital punishment as no execution has been reported in Pakistan in 2009 (until Sept 30). In 2008 two developments regarding the application of the death penalty in Pakistan took place. The theme chosen for the Day against the Death Penalty by the World Coalition against the Death Penalty, the international alliance of civil society organisations that spearheads the campaign against capital punishment, was focused on Asia where more people had been executed than in the rest of the world.
The record of six Asian countries was highlighted. Three countries — India, South Korea and Taiwan — received credit for progress towards the abolition of the death penalty. Pakistan was listed amongst the other three countries — along with Japan and Vietnam — that were noted for excessive application of the capital punishment.
But 2008 was also the year when the Government of Pakistan announced its intention to abolish the death penalty. As a first step it wanted to commute the death sentence awarded to several thousand convicts. Since no evidence of any practical step was available it was assumed that the government’s humanitarian zeal had got dissipated. Either the authorities had retreated in the face of some noise made by the quasi-religious lobby or it was overly preoccupied with the problems of its survival.
Human rights activists and others who stood for an end to hangings were dismayed at discovering that executions continued after the government’s abolitionist plan was announced and that a Musharraf-period ordinance prescribing death penalty for cyber crimes had been reissued. One is now happy to learn that the government did not give up the idea of adopting a rational policy on the death penalty.
The imposition of a de facto moratorium on executions is undoubtedly a great step forward and the government will receive acclaim throughout the world. It is, however, necessary to offer the people at home, especially the pro-execution lobby, the justification for this radical shift in policy.
The fact is that Pakistan’s keenness to retain the death penalty for more than two dozen offences, as against only two (murder and treason) at the time of independence, had become totally indefensible. For one thing, it was contrary to a growing worldwide trend in favour of abolition of the capital punishment.
A 2007 survey showed that more than two-thirds of the countries in the world had abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Of these countries, 93 had abolished the capital punishment for all crimes; nine countries had done so for all crimes except for those committed in times of war; and 35 countries were classified as de facto abolitionists as no execution had been carried out for at least 10 years (although the death penalty was still prescribed in law.)
The movement for abolition of the death penalty continues to gain new adherents year after year. This year Burundi, Togo and the US state of New Mexico have abolished the death penalty. Morocco and Kenya have reduced the number of offences that carry the death penalty.
For another thing, the five principal arguments advanced in the international discourse to repudiate the death penalty are more aptly applicable to Pakistan and similarly placed countries than others. These arguments are:
- The death penalty is irrevocable. Miscarriage of justice is possible even in the most judicially advanced countries. The glaring deficiencies in Pakistan’s justice system are well-known. Nothing can be done if a person is found to be innocent after he has been hanged.
- The death penalty is unfair because it is more likely to be applied to the poor and underprivileged than to the affluent and privileged. In Pakistan the Qisas and Diyat law ensures that only poor and weak persons are sent to the gallows.
- The death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Anyone condemned to death is not considered entitled to treatment as a human being. In Pakistan thousands have to rot in death cells for years on end. It is truly said of them that they die every day.
- The death penalty does not act as a deterrent. Nobody has proved that the incidence of any offences has declined after the prescription of the death penalty for them.
- The death penalty is violative of the second optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a moratorium on executions.
However, prudence demands that the objections and misgivings of those who oppose the abolition of the death penalty should be properly addressed. These elements fall into two categories. The first category comprises the people who have been brutalised under the Ziaul Haq gospel of retributive justice and public hangings or by their experience of executions by pseudo-religious militants. Such people can be cured of their aberrations through a sustained education and awareness campaign.
Somewhat more difficult will be the task of dealing with those who defend the death penalty as a punishment enjoined by Islam. In order to avoid provoking these elements into acting rashly the government may formally announce a moratorium on executions and simultaneously withdraw the death penalty for crimes that are not punishable with death in the Islamic code. The Council of Islamic Ideology has already explained that the Islamic law does not prescribe death as a punishment for more than a couple of offences. The laws relating to these offences should be amended after a fair debate and consensus.
The Pakistani authorities should find the theme for this year’s Day against the Death Penalty — Teaching Abolition — useful in mobilising public support for its abolitionist policy. The idea is to instruct students aged 14 to 18 years in the need to abolish the death penalty. Pakistani authorities can add lessons designed to promote tolerance to the courses suggested for the abolitionist campaign.
Some movement in the direction indicated here must not be delayed as an informal suspension of the death penalty does not relieve the wretched population in the death cells of their anxieties and agony caused by the possibility of execution.
Source : Dawn.com
By I.A. Rehman
Thursday, 08 Oct, 2009
Pakistan’s keenness to retain the death penalty for more than two dozen is totally indefensible. It was contrary to a growing worldwide trend in favour of abolition of the capital punishment. –File Photo
The World Day against the Death Penalty will be observed across the globe on Oct 10. And this time Pakistan will not be in the dock as a keen upholder of capital punishment as no execution has been reported in Pakistan in 2009 (until Sept 30). In 2008 two developments regarding the application of the death penalty in Pakistan took place. The theme chosen for the Day against the Death Penalty by the World Coalition against the Death Penalty, the international alliance of civil society organisations that spearheads the campaign against capital punishment, was focused on Asia where more people had been executed than in the rest of the world.
The record of six Asian countries was highlighted. Three countries — India, South Korea and Taiwan — received credit for progress towards the abolition of the death penalty. Pakistan was listed amongst the other three countries — along with Japan and Vietnam — that were noted for excessive application of the capital punishment.
But 2008 was also the year when the Government of Pakistan announced its intention to abolish the death penalty. As a first step it wanted to commute the death sentence awarded to several thousand convicts. Since no evidence of any practical step was available it was assumed that the government’s humanitarian zeal had got dissipated. Either the authorities had retreated in the face of some noise made by the quasi-religious lobby or it was overly preoccupied with the problems of its survival.
Human rights activists and others who stood for an end to hangings were dismayed at discovering that executions continued after the government’s abolitionist plan was announced and that a Musharraf-period ordinance prescribing death penalty for cyber crimes had been reissued. One is now happy to learn that the government did not give up the idea of adopting a rational policy on the death penalty.
The imposition of a de facto moratorium on executions is undoubtedly a great step forward and the government will receive acclaim throughout the world. It is, however, necessary to offer the people at home, especially the pro-execution lobby, the justification for this radical shift in policy.
The fact is that Pakistan’s keenness to retain the death penalty for more than two dozen offences, as against only two (murder and treason) at the time of independence, had become totally indefensible. For one thing, it was contrary to a growing worldwide trend in favour of abolition of the capital punishment.
A 2007 survey showed that more than two-thirds of the countries in the world had abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Of these countries, 93 had abolished the capital punishment for all crimes; nine countries had done so for all crimes except for those committed in times of war; and 35 countries were classified as de facto abolitionists as no execution had been carried out for at least 10 years (although the death penalty was still prescribed in law.)
The movement for abolition of the death penalty continues to gain new adherents year after year. This year Burundi, Togo and the US state of New Mexico have abolished the death penalty. Morocco and Kenya have reduced the number of offences that carry the death penalty.
For another thing, the five principal arguments advanced in the international discourse to repudiate the death penalty are more aptly applicable to Pakistan and similarly placed countries than others. These arguments are:
- The death penalty is irrevocable. Miscarriage of justice is possible even in the most judicially advanced countries. The glaring deficiencies in Pakistan’s justice system are well-known. Nothing can be done if a person is found to be innocent after he has been hanged.
- The death penalty is unfair because it is more likely to be applied to the poor and underprivileged than to the affluent and privileged. In Pakistan the Qisas and Diyat law ensures that only poor and weak persons are sent to the gallows.
- The death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Anyone condemned to death is not considered entitled to treatment as a human being. In Pakistan thousands have to rot in death cells for years on end. It is truly said of them that they die every day.
- The death penalty does not act as a deterrent. Nobody has proved that the incidence of any offences has declined after the prescription of the death penalty for them.
- The death penalty is violative of the second optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a moratorium on executions.
However, prudence demands that the objections and misgivings of those who oppose the abolition of the death penalty should be properly addressed. These elements fall into two categories. The first category comprises the people who have been brutalised under the Ziaul Haq gospel of retributive justice and public hangings or by their experience of executions by pseudo-religious militants. Such people can be cured of their aberrations through a sustained education and awareness campaign.
Somewhat more difficult will be the task of dealing with those who defend the death penalty as a punishment enjoined by Islam. In order to avoid provoking these elements into acting rashly the government may formally announce a moratorium on executions and simultaneously withdraw the death penalty for crimes that are not punishable with death in the Islamic code. The Council of Islamic Ideology has already explained that the Islamic law does not prescribe death as a punishment for more than a couple of offences. The laws relating to these offences should be amended after a fair debate and consensus.
The Pakistani authorities should find the theme for this year’s Day against the Death Penalty — Teaching Abolition — useful in mobilising public support for its abolitionist policy. The idea is to instruct students aged 14 to 18 years in the need to abolish the death penalty. Pakistani authorities can add lessons designed to promote tolerance to the courses suggested for the abolitionist campaign.
Some movement in the direction indicated here must not be delayed as an informal suspension of the death penalty does not relieve the wretched population in the death cells of their anxieties and agony caused by the possibility of execution.
Source : Dawn.com
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Abolition of Death Penalty Is Necessary For Protecting Human Rights By Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner For Human Rights, Council of Europe Published
A civilised society should expose the fallacy behind the idea that the State can kill someone to make the point that killing is wrong says Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner as he articulates his position.
Step by step the death penalty is being abolished. Most countries of the world have now stopped using this cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment: 94 states have decided on total abolition, 10 have abolished the penalty for all ordinary crimes and 35 others have not executed anyone for more than ten years. Europe is nowadays close to being a death penalty free zone. However, the abolitionist cause is not yet won.
The most populated countries in the world retain the death penalty: China, India, the United States and Indonesia. This means that the majority of the world’s people live in countries which continue to practice execution as punishment. In election campaigns in the United States, this is a taboo issue, and even the more progressive candidates refrain from raising it for fear of a backlash.
Politicians have problems in relating to public opinion on this issue also in other countries. The Russian Federation gave an undertaking when joining the Council of Europe 13 years ago to do away with the penalty. A moratorium was introduced but the Duma does not appear to be ready yet for a de jure abolition.
After the monstrous terrorist attack against the school in Beslan in September 2004, there were strong emotions in favour of executing the sole attacker who survived the disaster. However, the judicial authorities in Russia were loyal to the moratorium decision also in this extreme situation; the death sentence was transformed into life imprisonment.
Surveys of public opinion about the death penalty have usually shown a majority to be in favour of retaining this punishment. This has been the case particularly when a brutal and widely publicised murder has taken place.
However, opinion polls on this issue are not easy to interpret. There is a wide difference between asking for a gut reaction to brutal crime and soliciting a considered opinion about the ethics and principles relating to legalised State killing.
It is significant that there have been no widely-based demands for the re-introduction of the death penalty in European countries. Any such proposals are not coming from larger political parties.
Still, I believe it is important to present again the very strong arguments against killing as a judicial sanction. This is a debate which will go on and younger generations should be able to benefit from our past experiences.
It can be convincingly argued that the death penalty is ineffective. It has not had the intended deterrent effect. The crime rate is not lower in countries which have retained the penalty and has not gone up where it has been abolished. If anything, the trend is the opposite.
What is demonstrated, however, is the real risk of executing an innocent person. No system of justice is infallible, judges are human beings and mistakes are made in the court room. When the convicted person is executed, it is too late to correct the mistake. There have been a number of such cases – some of them revealed afterwards through new DNA techniques - and there are no guarantees that they will not occur in the future.
It has also been demonstrated that the death penalty regime has a clear tendency to discriminate against the poor and against minorities. Privileged people with contacts run much less risk of such punishment than others who have committed the same crime. The greatest risk is run by those who are marginalised; they tend to be at a disadvantage in the judicial process – also in death penalty cases.
These arguments are strong. However, it is not only a question of effective crime prevention, judicial certainty or prevention of discrimination; it is about the essence of human rights.
The Universal Declaration states that no one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. There have been attempts to find means of executing with little pain in order to make the process more “humane”. This has failed; there have been recent examples of prolonged suffering in the electric chair or when a person is injected with poison. Even if this could be avoided, it does not reduce the psychological pain when waiting for the execution. The death penalty is cruel, inhuman and degrading – and will always be so.
The key argument against the death penalty is that it violates the right to life. State killing is indeed the ultimate denial of human rights. That is why it is so essential that we continue to act for abolition.
The Council of Europe has been in the forefront in this effort. All member states have ratified Protocol 6 of the European Convention concerning abolition in peace time and the majority has also agreed to be bound by Protocol 13 regarding abolition in all circumstances (including in situations of war). Those remaining states should join.1
It should also be made clear that Belarus can only aspire to membership or even status as observer after it has abolished the death penalty. Governments in the United States and Japan should be reminded that their status as observer is questioned because of their position on this issue.
In the meantime the successful diplomatic initiatives in the United Nations should continue. A resolution was adopted with broad majority in the General Assembly in 2007 which recommended a global moratorium on the use of the death penalty. A similar resolution was agreed in 2008, again stressing that the moratorium should be established “with a view to abolishing the death penalty”.2
Our position on the death penalty indicates the kind of society we want to build. When the State itself kills a human being under its jurisdiction, it sends a message: it legitimises extreme violence. I am convinced that the death penalty has a brutalising effect in society. There is an element of “an eye for an eye” in each execution.
A civilised society should expose the fallacy behind the idea that the State can kill someone to make the point that killing is wrong.
Source : egovmonitor.com
Step by step the death penalty is being abolished. Most countries of the world have now stopped using this cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment: 94 states have decided on total abolition, 10 have abolished the penalty for all ordinary crimes and 35 others have not executed anyone for more than ten years. Europe is nowadays close to being a death penalty free zone. However, the abolitionist cause is not yet won.
The most populated countries in the world retain the death penalty: China, India, the United States and Indonesia. This means that the majority of the world’s people live in countries which continue to practice execution as punishment. In election campaigns in the United States, this is a taboo issue, and even the more progressive candidates refrain from raising it for fear of a backlash.
Politicians have problems in relating to public opinion on this issue also in other countries. The Russian Federation gave an undertaking when joining the Council of Europe 13 years ago to do away with the penalty. A moratorium was introduced but the Duma does not appear to be ready yet for a de jure abolition.
After the monstrous terrorist attack against the school in Beslan in September 2004, there were strong emotions in favour of executing the sole attacker who survived the disaster. However, the judicial authorities in Russia were loyal to the moratorium decision also in this extreme situation; the death sentence was transformed into life imprisonment.
Surveys of public opinion about the death penalty have usually shown a majority to be in favour of retaining this punishment. This has been the case particularly when a brutal and widely publicised murder has taken place.
However, opinion polls on this issue are not easy to interpret. There is a wide difference between asking for a gut reaction to brutal crime and soliciting a considered opinion about the ethics and principles relating to legalised State killing.
It is significant that there have been no widely-based demands for the re-introduction of the death penalty in European countries. Any such proposals are not coming from larger political parties.
Still, I believe it is important to present again the very strong arguments against killing as a judicial sanction. This is a debate which will go on and younger generations should be able to benefit from our past experiences.
It can be convincingly argued that the death penalty is ineffective. It has not had the intended deterrent effect. The crime rate is not lower in countries which have retained the penalty and has not gone up where it has been abolished. If anything, the trend is the opposite.
What is demonstrated, however, is the real risk of executing an innocent person. No system of justice is infallible, judges are human beings and mistakes are made in the court room. When the convicted person is executed, it is too late to correct the mistake. There have been a number of such cases – some of them revealed afterwards through new DNA techniques - and there are no guarantees that they will not occur in the future.
It has also been demonstrated that the death penalty regime has a clear tendency to discriminate against the poor and against minorities. Privileged people with contacts run much less risk of such punishment than others who have committed the same crime. The greatest risk is run by those who are marginalised; they tend to be at a disadvantage in the judicial process – also in death penalty cases.
These arguments are strong. However, it is not only a question of effective crime prevention, judicial certainty or prevention of discrimination; it is about the essence of human rights.
The Universal Declaration states that no one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. There have been attempts to find means of executing with little pain in order to make the process more “humane”. This has failed; there have been recent examples of prolonged suffering in the electric chair or when a person is injected with poison. Even if this could be avoided, it does not reduce the psychological pain when waiting for the execution. The death penalty is cruel, inhuman and degrading – and will always be so.
The key argument against the death penalty is that it violates the right to life. State killing is indeed the ultimate denial of human rights. That is why it is so essential that we continue to act for abolition.
The Council of Europe has been in the forefront in this effort. All member states have ratified Protocol 6 of the European Convention concerning abolition in peace time and the majority has also agreed to be bound by Protocol 13 regarding abolition in all circumstances (including in situations of war). Those remaining states should join.1
It should also be made clear that Belarus can only aspire to membership or even status as observer after it has abolished the death penalty. Governments in the United States and Japan should be reminded that their status as observer is questioned because of their position on this issue.
In the meantime the successful diplomatic initiatives in the United Nations should continue. A resolution was adopted with broad majority in the General Assembly in 2007 which recommended a global moratorium on the use of the death penalty. A similar resolution was agreed in 2008, again stressing that the moratorium should be established “with a view to abolishing the death penalty”.2
Our position on the death penalty indicates the kind of society we want to build. When the State itself kills a human being under its jurisdiction, it sends a message: it legitimises extreme violence. I am convinced that the death penalty has a brutalising effect in society. There is an element of “an eye for an eye” in each execution.
A civilised society should expose the fallacy behind the idea that the State can kill someone to make the point that killing is wrong.
Source : egovmonitor.com
Monday, October 5, 2009
Delhi HC commutes the death sentence
The Delhi High Court on August 31,2009 commuted the death sentence of man by name Gopal and sentenced him to life for minimum 20 years imprisonment without remission. Gopal had been convicted for the murder of a witness in the premises of the Tis Hazari court in Delhi.
Comment : Granting remission to a prisoner is entirely the prerogative of the Government and the judiciary should refrain from interfering with the power of the government. Remission is given to a prisoner on the recommendation of the jailer considering the behaviour of the prisoner. The order of the Delhi High Court goes against the reformation process of the prisoner. this judgement also sets a precedent and hence can affect the lives of many prisoners in future.
Its seems the courts are following an unwritten policy of commuting the death sentence and then awarding life imprisonment with conditions. In imposing the conditions the courts are overlooking the fact that they are interfering with the powers of the courts and also not allowing the process of reformation.
The judgements needs to be challenged on the limited ground of the conditions imposed by the Delhi High Court.
Comment : Granting remission to a prisoner is entirely the prerogative of the Government and the judiciary should refrain from interfering with the power of the government. Remission is given to a prisoner on the recommendation of the jailer considering the behaviour of the prisoner. The order of the Delhi High Court goes against the reformation process of the prisoner. this judgement also sets a precedent and hence can affect the lives of many prisoners in future.
Its seems the courts are following an unwritten policy of commuting the death sentence and then awarding life imprisonment with conditions. In imposing the conditions the courts are overlooking the fact that they are interfering with the powers of the courts and also not allowing the process of reformation.
The judgements needs to be challenged on the limited ground of the conditions imposed by the Delhi High Court.
Judge orders execution of death sentence
A Lohardaga sessions judge on Monday ordered the execution of death sentence of Mofil Khan and Mobarak Khan in the Makandu massacre
case. The Lohardaga sessions court has fixed 4 am on September 18 to carry out the sentence.
When the court sentenced four persons to death in the same case on August 5, 2008, the latter moved high court. It also confirmed the punishment for Mofil and Mobarak, while Vakil Khan and Saddam Khan were given life.
In a notice to officer-in-charge of Lohardaga jail, the sessions judge authorized him to carry out the execution and return this warrant with an endorsement certifying that the sentence has been executed.
The jailer of Lohardaga jail, Vinay Kumar Singh, said he has received the notice and forwarded it to Birsa Munda Central Jail at Hotwar in Ranchi the same day.
On June 6, 2007, Gaffar Khan's sons, Mofil and Mobarak, along with their sons and other relatives, killed their own brother Hanif Khan (50), his wife Kasmun Bibi (45) and six sons, Pale (25), Ibran (17), Danish (15), Yusuf (12), Meharban (11) and Anis (9). The incident occurred at Makandu village under Kuru police station in Lohardaga district.
Source :indiatimes.com
We are not sure whether the execution have been carried out or if the mercy petitions are pending before the Governor or the President. If anybody has any information, please let us know.
case. The Lohardaga sessions court has fixed 4 am on September 18 to carry out the sentence.
When the court sentenced four persons to death in the same case on August 5, 2008, the latter moved high court. It also confirmed the punishment for Mofil and Mobarak, while Vakil Khan and Saddam Khan were given life.
In a notice to officer-in-charge of Lohardaga jail, the sessions judge authorized him to carry out the execution and return this warrant with an endorsement certifying that the sentence has been executed.
The jailer of Lohardaga jail, Vinay Kumar Singh, said he has received the notice and forwarded it to Birsa Munda Central Jail at Hotwar in Ranchi the same day.
On June 6, 2007, Gaffar Khan's sons, Mofil and Mobarak, along with their sons and other relatives, killed their own brother Hanif Khan (50), his wife Kasmun Bibi (45) and six sons, Pale (25), Ibran (17), Danish (15), Yusuf (12), Meharban (11) and Anis (9). The incident occurred at Makandu village under Kuru police station in Lohardaga district.
Source :indiatimes.com
We are not sure whether the execution have been carried out or if the mercy petitions are pending before the Governor or the President. If anybody has any information, please let us know.
man sentenced to death in Kerala for killing wife and children
Two sentenced to death - Ghaziabad
Two persons have been sentenced to death by a court in Ghaziabad for kidnap and murder of a minor. The incident took place in the year 2004. The sentence was awarded on Sept 17.
The name of the persons sentence to death are Rajesh panda and Vishal Rai while Subhash Rai has been sentenced to life imprisonment.
Source : www.ptinews.com
The name of the persons sentence to death are Rajesh panda and Vishal Rai while Subhash Rai has been sentenced to life imprisonment.
Source : www.ptinews.com
Death sentence confirmed - Kerala
19 year old sentenced to death
A district judge in Dehra Dun has awarded death sentence to a 19 year old youth for raping and killing of his cousin on 24 September 2009 . The incident took place in January 2009.
Though the act may be gruesome, the district judge has not considered the young age of the accused and also rape and murder is not the rarest of rare crime.
Though the act may be gruesome, the district judge has not considered the young age of the accused and also rape and murder is not the rarest of rare crime.
Death Sentence in Jammu and Kashmir
The Rajouri district court has sentenced a man by name Amir to death for an offence committed in 2005. It is alleged that Amir and 4 others entered the house of a Munshi Ram and killed 5 people. He was arrested in the year 2006.
This is the first time that an alleged terrorist has been sentenced to death in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
This is the first time that an alleged terrorist has been sentenced to death in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Death Sentence of Deosthali mother and daughter commuted
The Bombay High Court has commuted the death sentence of Deosthali mother and daughter from Pune who have been convicted for murder of a doctor from Pune.
The Women had conducted their own trial and during the appeal also had argued themselves inspite of the High Court appointing an amicus curae in the matter.
We will try to upload the judgement as soon as it is on the Bombay High Court website.
The Women had conducted their own trial and during the appeal also had argued themselves inspite of the High Court appointing an amicus curae in the matter.
We will try to upload the judgement as soon as it is on the Bombay High Court website.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Waiting on death row: a cruel punishment
The Supreme Court in a land mark judgement in Jagdish Vs. State of M.P. delivered on 18 Sept 2009 by the bench of Justice Bedi and Justice Panchal has held that the death sentence of persons who are on death row for a very long time should be commuted. The judgement has stated that there are cases where the persons are on death row since more than 10 years. The Supreme Court in its judgement states that, 'The power of the President and the Governor to grant pardon etc. under Articles 72 and 161 of our Constitution though couched in imperative terms, has nevertheless to be exercised on the advice of the executive authority. In this background, it is the Government which, in effect, exercises that power. The condemned prisoner and his suffering relatives have, therefore, a very pertinent right in insisting that a decision in the matter be taken within a reasonable time, failing which the power should be exercised in favour of the prisoner. We, as Judges, remain largely unaware as to the reasons that ultimately bear with the Government in taking a decision either in favour of the prisoner or against him but whatever the decision it should be on sound legal principles related to the facts of the case. We must, however, say with the greatest emphasis, that human beings are not chattels and should not be used as pawns in furthering some larger political or government policy. We may hark back to our own experiences in life. Even a matter as mundane or trivial as the impending result of an examination or the report of a medical test arising out of suspicion of a serious disease, or the fate of a loved one who has gone missing or a person hanging between life and death on account of a severe injury, makes it impossible for a person to maintain his equanimity or normal way of life. Contrast this with the plight of a prisoner who has been under a sentence of death for 15 years or more living on hope but engulfed in fear as his life hangs in balance and in the hands of those who have no personal interest in his case and for whom he is only a name. Equally, consider the plight of the family of such a prisoner, his parents, wife and children, brothers and sisters, who too remain static and in a state of limbo and are unable to get on with life on account of the uncertain fate of a loved one. What makes it worse for the prisoner is the indifference and ennui which ultimately develops in the family, brought about by a combination of resignation, exhaustion, and despair. What may be asked is the fault of these hapless individuals and should they be treated in such a shabby manner.
14. The observations reproduced above become extremely relevant as of today on account of the pendency of 26 mercy petitions before the President of India, in some cases, where the Courts had awarded the death sentences more than a decade ago. We, too, take this opportunity to remind the concerned Governments of their obligations under the aforementioned statutory and Constitutional provisions.
15. Those of us who have had the occasion to inspect a Jail where executions are carried out have first hand knowledge of the agony and horror that a condemned prisoner undergoes every day. The very terminology used to identify such prisoners - death row in-mates, or condemned prisoners, with their even more explicit translations in the vernacular - tend to remind them of their plight every moment of the day. In addition to the solitary confinement and lack of privacy with respect to even the daily ablutions, the rattle on the cell door heralding the arrival of the Jailor with the prospect as the harbinger of bad news, a condemned prisoner lives a life of uncertainty and defeat. In one particular prison, the horror was exacerbated as the gallows could be seen over the wall from the condemned cells. The effect on the prisoners on seeing this menacing structure each morning during their daily exercise in the courtyard, can well be imagined. To cap it all, some of these prisoners, sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge in a case of multiple murders, were later acquitted by the High Court in appeal for lack of evidence.'
Considering the observations made by the Apex Court the government must commute all the death sentences to life immediately.
Waiting on death row: a cruel punishment
Shared via AddThis
14. The observations reproduced above become extremely relevant as of today on account of the pendency of 26 mercy petitions before the President of India, in some cases, where the Courts had awarded the death sentences more than a decade ago. We, too, take this opportunity to remind the concerned Governments of their obligations under the aforementioned statutory and Constitutional provisions.
15. Those of us who have had the occasion to inspect a Jail where executions are carried out have first hand knowledge of the agony and horror that a condemned prisoner undergoes every day. The very terminology used to identify such prisoners - death row in-mates, or condemned prisoners, with their even more explicit translations in the vernacular - tend to remind them of their plight every moment of the day. In addition to the solitary confinement and lack of privacy with respect to even the daily ablutions, the rattle on the cell door heralding the arrival of the Jailor with the prospect as the harbinger of bad news, a condemned prisoner lives a life of uncertainty and defeat. In one particular prison, the horror was exacerbated as the gallows could be seen over the wall from the condemned cells. The effect on the prisoners on seeing this menacing structure each morning during their daily exercise in the courtyard, can well be imagined. To cap it all, some of these prisoners, sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge in a case of multiple murders, were later acquitted by the High Court in appeal for lack of evidence.'
Considering the observations made by the Apex Court the government must commute all the death sentences to life immediately.
Waiting on death row: a cruel punishment
Shared via AddThis
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Death Sentence Confirmed for one in Nithari case...
The Allahabad High Court the death sentence of Koli in the appeal filed against the order sessions court in one of the Nithari cases. At the same time the high Court has acquitted Pandher the employer of Koli in whose house the dead bodies were found.
Source : The Hindu - 12 September 2009
Source : The Hindu - 12 September 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Revisiting the death penalty
Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily’s observation that the country should move towards the abolition of capital punishment is clear evidence of recognition in principle at the highest quarters that there can be no rational justification for that extreme penalty in a democratic state. His view is representative of the current thinking across the world. Even if states are still some distance from deleting the barbaric punishment from the statute, they have surely moved towards a de facto moratorium on the practice. Out of step with this trend, however, is the Supreme Court of India’s 1983 judgment that upheld capital sentence for the rarest of rare crimes, a decision that clearly warrants a review. Another compelling reason for revisiting that ruling is the recourse by retentionist states to methods of execution that are less cruel, humiliating, and degrading (such as the lethal injection) than hanging, adopted in India. Significantly, the legal challenge in the United States Supreme Court to the lethal injection has over the years thrown light on how the physical and mental state of convicts (when the dose is administered) entails serious violation of their human rights.
Although Indian law prescribes the death penalty for crimes such as murder, abetting mutiny by members of the armed forces, and waging war against the government, it is in cases perceived as particularly gruesome and politically sensitive that the extreme punishment is awarded. However, those who seek to take the high ground on national security contend that conviction related to terrorist crimes should be treated as a class apart, implying that it should automatically attract the death penalty. The Gujarat government has, following the recent spate of deaths, proposed to make a law prescribing death penalty for manufacturing and purveying spurious liquor. The demand to apply the penalty for various other crimes could weigh heavily on the outcome of the Presidential clemency petitions pending consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Besides, India cannot be oblivious to the growing international trend against executions. The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence in a number of cases although the lower judiciary has tended to hand it down more readily in recent years. Mr. Moily’s remarks provide room for optimism over the prospect of abolition in the not too distant future.
(Source: The Hindu 31st July 2009)
Although Indian law prescribes the death penalty for crimes such as murder, abetting mutiny by members of the armed forces, and waging war against the government, it is in cases perceived as particularly gruesome and politically sensitive that the extreme punishment is awarded. However, those who seek to take the high ground on national security contend that conviction related to terrorist crimes should be treated as a class apart, implying that it should automatically attract the death penalty. The Gujarat government has, following the recent spate of deaths, proposed to make a law prescribing death penalty for manufacturing and purveying spurious liquor. The demand to apply the penalty for various other crimes could weigh heavily on the outcome of the Presidential clemency petitions pending consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Besides, India cannot be oblivious to the growing international trend against executions. The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence in a number of cases although the lower judiciary has tended to hand it down more readily in recent years. Mr. Moily’s remarks provide room for optimism over the prospect of abolition in the not too distant future.
(Source: The Hindu 31st July 2009)
Monday, August 31, 2009
Contract killer’s death penalty converted to life imprisonment
New Delhi, Aug 31 (IANS) The Delhi High Court Monday converted the sentence of a contract killer who had killed a witness six years ago from death penalty to life imprisonment on the grounds that the case did not fall in the category of rarest of the rare. Mani Gopal had murdered the witness, an eunuch, inside the Tis Hazari court premises in 2003 when she was going to record her evidence in a murder case.
Geeta Hazi, a resident of Rajouri Garden in Delhi, had allegedly hired Gopal to eliminate Neelam as there was a dispute between them over control of areas for collection of donations and gifts on auspicious occasions. The accused had fired three shots at Neelam, killing her on the spot. The police arrested Gopal instantly and seized the weapon.
Hazi had earlier in 2002 allegedly hired another killer to eliminate Neelam. But instead of killing Neelam, the killer murdered another eunuch. However, the court had acquitted the contract killer in a separate trial for want of evidence.
A division bench comprising of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Indermeet Kaur said: “Keeping in view the fact that the crime committed by Gopal is more than a murder of an ordinary category, we hold that the instant case falls in the category where the appropriate sentence to be imposed is of imprisonment for life with a direction that Gopal would not be considered for being granted remission till he undergoes an actual sentence of 20 years.” The bench said that by killing the witness the accused had “polluted the stream of justice”.
The court while converting the death penalty to life imprisonment ruled: “To attract the penalty of death, it has to be established that the case falls in the category of the rarest of the rare. “Witnesses being threatened, intimidated or bought over has been plaguing the criminal justice delivery system in India to such an extent that in the eyes of the public the system itself has come under trial.
“The existence of the state is dependent upon a good, effective and efficient criminal justice delivery system. If the same fails, the citizens would settle their disputes in private and the rule of law would cease to exist,” the court said.
Source: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/contract-killers-death-penalty-converted-to-life-imprisonment_100240865.html accessed on 1st September 2009)
Geeta Hazi, a resident of Rajouri Garden in Delhi, had allegedly hired Gopal to eliminate Neelam as there was a dispute between them over control of areas for collection of donations and gifts on auspicious occasions. The accused had fired three shots at Neelam, killing her on the spot. The police arrested Gopal instantly and seized the weapon.
Hazi had earlier in 2002 allegedly hired another killer to eliminate Neelam. But instead of killing Neelam, the killer murdered another eunuch. However, the court had acquitted the contract killer in a separate trial for want of evidence.
A division bench comprising of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Indermeet Kaur said: “Keeping in view the fact that the crime committed by Gopal is more than a murder of an ordinary category, we hold that the instant case falls in the category where the appropriate sentence to be imposed is of imprisonment for life with a direction that Gopal would not be considered for being granted remission till he undergoes an actual sentence of 20 years.” The bench said that by killing the witness the accused had “polluted the stream of justice”.
The court while converting the death penalty to life imprisonment ruled: “To attract the penalty of death, it has to be established that the case falls in the category of the rarest of the rare. “Witnesses being threatened, intimidated or bought over has been plaguing the criminal justice delivery system in India to such an extent that in the eyes of the public the system itself has come under trial.
“The existence of the state is dependent upon a good, effective and efficient criminal justice delivery system. If the same fails, the citizens would settle their disputes in private and the rule of law would cease to exist,” the court said.
Source: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/contract-killers-death-penalty-converted-to-life-imprisonment_100240865.html accessed on 1st September 2009)
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
SC for fewer death sentences
Pushes For Objectivity & Less Harsh Alternative Before Extreme Penalty
New Delhi: Naysayers to death penalty can take heart. A 30-year-old SC judgment laying down “rarest of rare case” guidelines on imposition of death penalty may soon see further tightening that could make award of capital punishment an absolute rare phenomenon.
In a recent order, the Supreme Court said judges, while awarding death penalty in mechanical consonance with the 1980 ‘Bachan Singh’ judgment, appear to have lost sight of vital ingredients—“the lesser alternative (life imprisonment) is unquestionably foreclosed” and “objective fairness standards”. These two ingredients must essentially be fulfilled by judges before awarding death penalty, but have not been complied with diligently in the recent past, said a bench of Justices S B Sinha (since retired) and M K Sharma.
Extremely concerned by the varying interpretation of the “rarest of rare case” guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh judgment, the apex court said time had come for an attempt towards deciphering a common view on this to usher in “some objectivity to the precedent on death penalty which is crumbling down under the weight of disparate interpretations”. “We may come across instances where the case may belong to the rarest of rare category, but in court’s view the ‘objective fairness standards’ necessary to be met before death penalty can be awarded have not been complied with diligently,” the bench said.
The judgment came in a case in which the apex court upheld the life sentence awarded to Mohd Farooq Abdul Gafur and others in the 1999 murder attempt on Shiv Sena leader Milind Vaidya. Though Vaidya escaped with injuries, the bullets fired by the assailants killed three. It took note of the concern of legal commentators that while the rich and powerful never got the extreme penalty, “it is invariably the marginalised and destitute who suffer extreme penalty ultimately”.
To support the need for further tightening of the death penalty system, Justice Sinha said if a person was given life imprisonment and later found to be innocent, he could be released from prison though the state would not be able to compensate the time he lost in prison. “Such a reversal is not possible where a person has been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. The execution of the sentence of death in such cases makes miscarriage of justice irrevocable. It is a finality which cannot be corrected,” he said.
The court was aware of the swinging fortunes of an accused in the three-tier justice delivery system, where a trial court verdict is reversed by the high courts and in turn the SC upturns an HC judgment. “Swinging fortunes of the accused on the issue of determination of guilt and sentence at the hands of the criminal justice system is something which is perplexing for us when we speak of fair trial,” Justice Sinha said expressing his views on death sentence.
(Source: Times of India
19th August 2009
Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN)
‘We should hang Home Minister’
The HC is currently hearing the appeal against the death sentence awarded to Leena (r) and Deepti Deosthali(l) for the 2006 murder of Dr Deepak Mahajan
Miffed that police could not record ransom calls made in Dr Mahajan murder case due to faulty machinery, Bombay High Court says the government’s lax attitude is to blame for ill-equipped force
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the State Government for failing to equip the police well enough to investigate crimes.The Division Bench of Justice JN Patel and Mrudula Bhatkar was hearing the appeal against the death sentence awarded by the Pune sessions court to Leena Deosthali and her daughter Deepti, the two women accused in the Dr Deepak Mahajan murder case.
The judges were irked when the prosecution admitted that the transcripts of the ransom calls made to the deceased doctor’s family during his kidnapping were not available, as the police machinery tapping the phones was faulty and could not record the conversations.
Justice Patel noted that the police force is ill-equipped because of the lax attitude of the government. Citing the example of the unavailability of bulletproof jackets for officers during the Mumbai terror attacks, he remarked, “Because they (police) are not provided with the necessary equipment, we have to suffer events like 26/11.” He held the Home Department responsible for the flaws in police investigations and quipped, “We should hang the Minister for Home.”
Advocate Ashok Mundergi assured the court on behalf of the prosecution that satisfactory answers would be given over the lapses in police investigations pointed out by the court.
FAST TRACK INJUSTICE
The Division Bench was also especially peeved to find that the Pune sessions court had not examined key witnesses such as the police sketch artist who first prepared a sketch of the two accused. Arguing for the prosecution, advocate Ashok Mundergi told the court that lack of time in a fast track trial did not allow the court to wait for the sketch artist, who was unavailable at the time of summons. Justice Patel responded, “A fast track trial does not mean you deliver a judgment without examining witnesses just because it has to be fast track. It is against the principles of justice. In that case, there is no point in having fast track courts.”
THE CASE SO FAR
The Pune sessions court in 2007 found Leena and Deepti Deosthali guilty of the 2006 murder of Dr Deepak Mahajan, and awarded the mother-daughter duo the death sentence. The HC began hearing the appeal last August. Earlier this year, the case was sent back to the Pune sessions court for cross-examination of 25 of the 46 witnesses, as the accused did not have a lawyer in the sessions court. However, the Pune court upheld the sentence. The Deosthalis are currently lodged in the Byculla women’s jail and have refused a lawyer for the HC hearings as well. However, the court has appointed Rohini Salian as the amicus curiae.
(Source: MUMBAI MIRROR BUREAU
19th August 2009)
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Awarding Death Penalty to be made Tougher: Supreme Court
Naysayers to the death penalty can take heart. A 30-year-old Supreme Court judgment laying down "rarest of rare case" guidelines on imposition of death penalty may soon see further tightening that could make award of capital punishment an absolute rare phenomenon. In a recent order, the Supreme Court said judges, while awarding death penalty in mechanical consonance with the 1980 'Bachan Singh' judgment,appear to have lost sight of vital ingredients "the lesser alternative(life imprisonment) is unquestionably foreclosed" and "objective fairnesss tandards." These 2 ingredients must essentially be fulfiled by judges before awarding the death penalty, but have not been complied with diligently in the recent past, said a Bench of Justices S B Sinha (since retired) and M K Sharma. Concerned by the varying interpretation of the "rarest of rare case" guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh judgment, the apex court said time had come for an attempt towards deciphering a common view on this to usherin "some objectivity to the precedent on death penalty which is crumbling down under the weight of disparate interpretations". "We may come across instances where the case may belong to the rarest ofrare category, but in court's view the 'objective fairness standards'necessary to be met before death penalty can be awarded have not been complied with diligently," the Bench said. The judgment came in a case in which the apex court upheld the life sentence awarded to Mohd Farooq Abdul Gafur and others in the 1999 murder attempt on Shiv Sena leader Milind Vaidya. Though Vaidya escaped without injuries, the bullets fired by the assailants killed. It took note of the concern of legal commentators that while the rich and powerful never got the extreme penalty, "it is invariably the marginalise dand destitute who suffer extreme penalty ultimately."
Source: The Times of India, 18 August 2009
Source: The Times of India, 18 August 2009
A plea for Sarabjit
At an informal meeting between a group of Indians and Pakistanis in the Swiss village of Caux, the venue of the second forum of human security in July 2009, one suggestion put forward was for the governments in New Delhi and Islamabad to abolish capital punishment.
It was argued that it would help improve relations between the two neighbours. Yes it would, if this suggestion were to be taken seriously.
Given the number of prisoners from each country languishing in the jails of the other at any point in time and the fact that a number of them have been on death row for years makes this an issue worth taking up. The charge most frequently slapped on such prisoners is of indulging in acts of terrorism or ISI/RAW-inspired espionage. Invariably the fate of one man is tacitly interwoven with that of another.
This strategy results in a tit-for-tat game with the two sides retaliating to each other’s actions in similar fashion. If there is a man linked to India on death row in Pakistan, be assured there will be one awaiting a similar fate in India. Today, Mohammad Afzal Guru stands convicted in India for storming the Lok Sabha in December 2001. In Kot Lakhpat jail, Lahore, we have Sarabjit Singh arrested in 1990 and convicted of carrying out serial bomb blasts in Faisalabad, Kasur and Lahore.
Sarabjit’s case will be coming up in court shortly and there are many reasons why thousands in Pakistan, as well as India, feel that he should not be hanged.
Sarabjit was sentenced to death in 1991 by Lahore’s anti-terrorism court. He filed a petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed in 2005 on the grounds that it was time-barred. An appeal to review the petition was again dismissed in June 2009 when the government-appointed lawyer for the convict failed to appear before the court on two consecutive occasions when the case came up for hearing.
Now a new lawyer, Awais Shaikh, has been appointed and he is committed to fighting his client’s case. A fresh application has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of its earlier decision to dismiss Sarabjit Singh’s petition challenging his death penalty. A mercy petition is also being made to the president for clemency. The former Indian cricket captain, Kapil Dev, has collected 100,000 signatures calling for reprieve for Sarabjit and the same is being done on this side of the border.
Sheikh’s recent visit to India and the warm welcome he received there symbolises the popular sentiment in that country in favour of Sarabjit’s reprieve, as pointed out by the foreign minister.
Thus Sarabjit’s case has now acquired the dimension of an India-Pakistan issue which can be a factor in promoting amity among the people of the two countries. True, there are people lacking compassion who would argue in support of an eye for an eye and stern punishment for those who have ‘wronged’.
But the problem with capital punishment is that it is a frightfully ‘ultimate’ action that is irrevocable. Can one really be sure if the convict has really committed the deed? Whether a man is judged innocent or guilty depends on so many factors beyond his control. The interpretation of the law, the quality of legal assistance the defendant is provided, the efficiency or otherwise of the prosecution, even the political, international and social circumstances at the time the alleged crime was committed etc. All of these go into the making of a case for or against the person in the dock.
In Sarabjit’s case it is said to be based on conjectures and surmises. His name is disputed and is not even cited in the FIR. Given factors such as these, jurists now regard the death penalty to be an anachronistic punishment that has, to use Amnesty International’s words, “no place in a modern criminal justice system”. And the main question to be asked is, has capital punishment really deterred serious crime?
One doesn’t have to repeat all the arguments advanced by the opponents of capital punishment over the decades that have been so convincing that 133 governments have seen the wisdom of abolishing the death penalty. It is time others followed suit. In Pakistan’s case it is all the more difficult to condone what can be described as a lapse on the part of the government.
Last year, on the occasion of Benazir Bhutto’s birthday, Prime Minister Gilani had promised the National Assembly that all prisoners on death row in Pakistan would have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. This proposal was approved by the cabinet and reaffirmed by President Zardari when he took oath of office.
Why hasn’t this promise been fulfilled? Here is an opportunity for the government to show its commitment to two causes — that of human rights and that of peace in South Asia. The fact is that Sarabjit’s case has a direct bearing on India-Pakistan relations. The Indian government has been following the case closely, and has appealed a number of times to Islamabad to commute Sarabjit’s sentence to life imprisonment or grant him clemency.
Significantly, last year Sarabjit’s family members were granted visas to enable them to visit him in prison. It was then that he met his younger daughter for the first time. She was born after he had been arrested when, according to his family, he had strayed into Pakistani territory in a state of drunken stupor. His hanging was first put off for a month in April 2008 and then indefinitely.
The political implications of such cases, that also have strong humanitarian undertones, have not escaped public notice. Last year another Indian, allegedly a spy, Kashmir Singh, was released after 35 years in Pakistani prisons. Why not Sarabjit Singh who has already spent 18 years behind bars and was allowed consular access only four years ago?
(Source: By Zubeida Mustafa
Wednesday, 19 Aug, 2009 | 08:41 AM PST |
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-a-plea-for-sarabjit-hs-04
accessed on 19th August 2009)
It was argued that it would help improve relations between the two neighbours. Yes it would, if this suggestion were to be taken seriously.
Given the number of prisoners from each country languishing in the jails of the other at any point in time and the fact that a number of them have been on death row for years makes this an issue worth taking up. The charge most frequently slapped on such prisoners is of indulging in acts of terrorism or ISI/RAW-inspired espionage. Invariably the fate of one man is tacitly interwoven with that of another.
This strategy results in a tit-for-tat game with the two sides retaliating to each other’s actions in similar fashion. If there is a man linked to India on death row in Pakistan, be assured there will be one awaiting a similar fate in India. Today, Mohammad Afzal Guru stands convicted in India for storming the Lok Sabha in December 2001. In Kot Lakhpat jail, Lahore, we have Sarabjit Singh arrested in 1990 and convicted of carrying out serial bomb blasts in Faisalabad, Kasur and Lahore.
Sarabjit’s case will be coming up in court shortly and there are many reasons why thousands in Pakistan, as well as India, feel that he should not be hanged.
Sarabjit was sentenced to death in 1991 by Lahore’s anti-terrorism court. He filed a petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed in 2005 on the grounds that it was time-barred. An appeal to review the petition was again dismissed in June 2009 when the government-appointed lawyer for the convict failed to appear before the court on two consecutive occasions when the case came up for hearing.
Now a new lawyer, Awais Shaikh, has been appointed and he is committed to fighting his client’s case. A fresh application has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of its earlier decision to dismiss Sarabjit Singh’s petition challenging his death penalty. A mercy petition is also being made to the president for clemency. The former Indian cricket captain, Kapil Dev, has collected 100,000 signatures calling for reprieve for Sarabjit and the same is being done on this side of the border.
Sheikh’s recent visit to India and the warm welcome he received there symbolises the popular sentiment in that country in favour of Sarabjit’s reprieve, as pointed out by the foreign minister.
Thus Sarabjit’s case has now acquired the dimension of an India-Pakistan issue which can be a factor in promoting amity among the people of the two countries. True, there are people lacking compassion who would argue in support of an eye for an eye and stern punishment for those who have ‘wronged’.
But the problem with capital punishment is that it is a frightfully ‘ultimate’ action that is irrevocable. Can one really be sure if the convict has really committed the deed? Whether a man is judged innocent or guilty depends on so many factors beyond his control. The interpretation of the law, the quality of legal assistance the defendant is provided, the efficiency or otherwise of the prosecution, even the political, international and social circumstances at the time the alleged crime was committed etc. All of these go into the making of a case for or against the person in the dock.
In Sarabjit’s case it is said to be based on conjectures and surmises. His name is disputed and is not even cited in the FIR. Given factors such as these, jurists now regard the death penalty to be an anachronistic punishment that has, to use Amnesty International’s words, “no place in a modern criminal justice system”. And the main question to be asked is, has capital punishment really deterred serious crime?
One doesn’t have to repeat all the arguments advanced by the opponents of capital punishment over the decades that have been so convincing that 133 governments have seen the wisdom of abolishing the death penalty. It is time others followed suit. In Pakistan’s case it is all the more difficult to condone what can be described as a lapse on the part of the government.
Last year, on the occasion of Benazir Bhutto’s birthday, Prime Minister Gilani had promised the National Assembly that all prisoners on death row in Pakistan would have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. This proposal was approved by the cabinet and reaffirmed by President Zardari when he took oath of office.
Why hasn’t this promise been fulfilled? Here is an opportunity for the government to show its commitment to two causes — that of human rights and that of peace in South Asia. The fact is that Sarabjit’s case has a direct bearing on India-Pakistan relations. The Indian government has been following the case closely, and has appealed a number of times to Islamabad to commute Sarabjit’s sentence to life imprisonment or grant him clemency.
Significantly, last year Sarabjit’s family members were granted visas to enable them to visit him in prison. It was then that he met his younger daughter for the first time. She was born after he had been arrested when, according to his family, he had strayed into Pakistani territory in a state of drunken stupor. His hanging was first put off for a month in April 2008 and then indefinitely.
The political implications of such cases, that also have strong humanitarian undertones, have not escaped public notice. Last year another Indian, allegedly a spy, Kashmir Singh, was released after 35 years in Pakistani prisons. Why not Sarabjit Singh who has already spent 18 years behind bars and was allowed consular access only four years ago?
(Source: By Zubeida Mustafa
Wednesday, 19 Aug, 2009 | 08:41 AM PST |
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-a-plea-for-sarabjit-hs-04
accessed on 19th August 2009)
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
He’s waiting for the hangman since 1996
Held In ’91, Convict’s Plea Gathers Dust With Prez
Chandigarh: Piara Singh (80) can neither walk nor see. His dementia, too, is getting worse by the day. And the world has forgotten about him.
In what must rank as one of India’s most callous instances of treating prisoners, Piara, a murder convict with capital punishment hanging over his head, has been languishing in Amritsar jail since 1991, mostly in solitary confinement, with neither death nor mercy rescuing him. Although his mercy petition is pending with the President since 1997, nothing by way of either relief or upholding of the sentence has come from Rashtrapati Bhavan.
To his lawyer Navkiran Singh, who meets the condemned man once in a while, Piara whispers that he can’t take it anymore. ‘‘I should have been hanged the day they said I should be killed,’’ he mumbles. It was nearly two decades ago that Piara Singh, then about 60, stepped inside Amritsar jail after being arrested in a murder case, a crime his three sons were also subsequently charged with. The death sentence was handed to him five years later in 1996, triggering his removal to solitary confinement in a 12X6 cell. He has been there since.
Residents of Amritsar’s Baserke village, Piara and his sons were found guilty of firing at a gathering to celebrate a marriage in November, 1991. It was an old enmity and by the time the violence ebbed, 17 people died. ‘‘I was moved by his plight when I accidentally stumbled upon him at Amritsar jail where I went to collect data on death row inmates in 2006,’’ said Navkiran Singh. ‘‘I decided I would fight for him. But now Piara just prays for death. It is horrifying.’’
While his initial mercy petition is gathering dust in Delhi, closer home, a PIL was filed in the Punjab and Haryana HC in August 2006, pleading that it is inhuman to keep convicts in solitary confinement. It also pleaded that Piara’s death sentence be commuted to a life term.
Gearing up for August 19, the PIL’s next date of hearing, Navkiran said, ‘‘Life term, in the eyes of the law, is interpreted to be of 20 years and in a normal murder case, after adding remission, it comes down to nine. Piara has suffered a lot. At least he should spend the last days of his life in his house.’’
But with neither the hangman nor the courts reavhing out, disease is slowly consuming the frail man. A medical report in January says, ‘‘Piara has osteoarthritis in both knee joints and acid peptic disease. As a result of prolonged incarceration, he has symptoms of mild psychotic disorder which at times results in him hallucinating.’’
No End In Sight?
November 1991: Piara arrested for murder, sent to Amritsar jail
January 1996: Gets death sentence along with son Sarabjit
Feb 2001: Piara’s other sons, Gurdev and Satnam, too get death verdict
March 1997: Files mercy petition with President of India
August 2006: PIL in Punjab & Haryana HC requesting conversion of death sentence to life imprisonment
1950-1980: Between 3,000 to 4,000 executions took place in the country
1980-1997: Two to three convicts were hanged per year
1997-2004: De facto moratorium on executions
August 2004: One execution for rape and murder
After 2004: No execution, but capital punishment is being handed down
(Source: Times of India 12 August 2009
Supriya Bhardwaj | TNN)
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Death penalty for 2003 Mumbai bombers
An Indian court on Thursday sentenced to death three people, including a married couple, for planting bombs that killed 52 in the city of Mumbai in 2003. Judge M.R. Puranik, sitting at a special anti-terrorism court, ordered that Haneef Sayyed, his wife Fahmeeda Sayyed, and Ashrat Ansari "should be hanged by the neck until dead" for murder, criminal conspiracy and terrorism.All three were convicted last week, six years after bombs exploded at the Gateway of India monument and in the Zaveri Bazaar jewellery quarter.
They stood impassive in the dock as the sentences were handed down. Their lawyers have indicated that they will appeal against the death penalty, which is given rarely in India and is often delayed indefinitely or commuted by the president.
The court had heard the blasts were carried out in retaliation for Hindu atrocities against Muslims during riots in western Gujarat state in 2002 and the trio claimed to be members of the so-called "Gujarat Muslim Revenge Force".
Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam also said they were members of the banned, Pakistan-based Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was also allegedly behind last year's militant attacks in Mumbai that killed 166 people.
Haneef Sayyed's lawyer had argued that his client should be sent to prison for life without parole. Fahmeeda Sayyed's counsel also argued against the death penalty, saying she was a poor, uneducated woman pressured into committing the crime by her husband out of Muslim duty and was taken along to "camouflage" the group's intentions.
Ansari's lawyer Sushan Kunjuramaran made no submissions but the convicted bomber told the judge he did not agree with the verdict. Prosecutor Nikam rejected the defence arguments, saying the offences fell into the "rarest of rare" category of crimes deemed appropriate for a judge to pass the death sentence.
The meticulously planned and executed bombings, carried out by planting high-explosive devices in the boots of taxis, were of "extreme brutality" and led to the "massacre of innocent people", he told the court. "It would be a mockery of justice if the death penalty is not imposed," he added.
The trial was the biggest anti-terrorism case in the city since the 1993 "Black Friday" bombings in which 257 people were killed and at least 800 others were injured.
Source : http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gnYLqkVMk6Hq5ZDHOcTIwFqKlmpQ
By Phil Hazlewood (AFP)
They stood impassive in the dock as the sentences were handed down. Their lawyers have indicated that they will appeal against the death penalty, which is given rarely in India and is often delayed indefinitely or commuted by the president.
The court had heard the blasts were carried out in retaliation for Hindu atrocities against Muslims during riots in western Gujarat state in 2002 and the trio claimed to be members of the so-called "Gujarat Muslim Revenge Force".
Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam also said they were members of the banned, Pakistan-based Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was also allegedly behind last year's militant attacks in Mumbai that killed 166 people.
Haneef Sayyed's lawyer had argued that his client should be sent to prison for life without parole. Fahmeeda Sayyed's counsel also argued against the death penalty, saying she was a poor, uneducated woman pressured into committing the crime by her husband out of Muslim duty and was taken along to "camouflage" the group's intentions.
Ansari's lawyer Sushan Kunjuramaran made no submissions but the convicted bomber told the judge he did not agree with the verdict. Prosecutor Nikam rejected the defence arguments, saying the offences fell into the "rarest of rare" category of crimes deemed appropriate for a judge to pass the death sentence.
The meticulously planned and executed bombings, carried out by planting high-explosive devices in the boots of taxis, were of "extreme brutality" and led to the "massacre of innocent people", he told the court. "It would be a mockery of justice if the death penalty is not imposed," he added.
The trial was the biggest anti-terrorism case in the city since the 1993 "Black Friday" bombings in which 257 people were killed and at least 800 others were injured.
Source : http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gnYLqkVMk6Hq5ZDHOcTIwFqKlmpQ
By Phil Hazlewood (AFP)
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Prosecutor pushes for death penalty in Mumbai twin blasts case
Terming it as a 'rarest of the rare' case, special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam on Tuesday pushed for the death penalty for the three convicts in the 2003 twin blast case in which 54 person were killed. The quantum of sentence would be pronounced on Thursday.
Last week, the special POTA court convicted a husband-wife team of terrorist module - Mohammed Hanif Sayeed (46) and Fahmeeda (43) and their close aide Arshad Ansari (32) for the twin blasts of Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar.
On Tuesday, Nikam submitted before additional sessions judge M R Puranik that since the case falls under the 'rarest of the rare' case category, all the three convicts should be sent to gallows for committing “heinous and brutal” crime and displaying disregard for human lives.
“The convicts were exceptionally cruel and had total disregard for human lives. The bombings, meticulously planned and executed, were of extreme brutality leading to the massacre of innocent people,” Nikam argued.
He further said that it was the manner or the mode of the murder which attracts death penalty for the trio and argued that the convicts not only killed the innocent but also enjoyed the act of killing. “Thus the convicts loose every right to live,” Nikam contended.
However, defence lawyer Sudeep Pasbola representing Fahmeeda sought lesser punishment for her contending that she had not actively participated in the conspiracy of the blasts. “This cannot be considered as a rarest of the rare case for Fahmeeda as she had acted under the influence of her husband who had asked her to accompany him just to camouflage because woman and children do not cause suspicion,” Pasbola argued. “She is a woman who has to look after her two daughters. In such circumstances, Fahmeeda deserves lesser punishment,” he added.
To this, Nikam argued, “Fahimida, although a woman, participated in the crime willingly and no one had compelled her to assist her husband in terrorist acts.” He cited the judgement of Rajiv Gandhi assassination case in which the convict Nalini was awarded death sentence even though she had delivered a child in the jail.
Defence lawyer Wahab Khan representing Hanif argued that he should be awarded life imprisonment instead of death contending that he had committed the crime under the influence of the members of Lashker-e-Toiba who had indoctrinated him. “Hanif did not have criminal antecedents. He had gone to Dubai to earn bread and butter but was lured into conspiracy by Pakistani nationals after he was shown CDs of atrocities on Muslims,” Wahab said.
The two blasts at Gateway of India, a prominent landmark of this metropolis and Zaveri Bazaar, the glittering gold market of Mumbai - on August 25, 2003 have left 54 dead and 244 injured. RDX-based bombs were placed in taxis to trigger the explosions.
The accused also alleged to have been involved in placing an unexploded bomb in a bus at SEEPZ in suburban Andheri in December 2, 2002 and placing bomb in bus at Ghatkopar in July 28, 2003 in which two persons were killed.
(Source: Tuesday, August 04th, 2009 AT 8:08 PM
Sakal times)
Last week, the special POTA court convicted a husband-wife team of terrorist module - Mohammed Hanif Sayeed (46) and Fahmeeda (43) and their close aide Arshad Ansari (32) for the twin blasts of Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar.
On Tuesday, Nikam submitted before additional sessions judge M R Puranik that since the case falls under the 'rarest of the rare' case category, all the three convicts should be sent to gallows for committing “heinous and brutal” crime and displaying disregard for human lives.
“The convicts were exceptionally cruel and had total disregard for human lives. The bombings, meticulously planned and executed, were of extreme brutality leading to the massacre of innocent people,” Nikam argued.
He further said that it was the manner or the mode of the murder which attracts death penalty for the trio and argued that the convicts not only killed the innocent but also enjoyed the act of killing. “Thus the convicts loose every right to live,” Nikam contended.
However, defence lawyer Sudeep Pasbola representing Fahmeeda sought lesser punishment for her contending that she had not actively participated in the conspiracy of the blasts. “This cannot be considered as a rarest of the rare case for Fahmeeda as she had acted under the influence of her husband who had asked her to accompany him just to camouflage because woman and children do not cause suspicion,” Pasbola argued. “She is a woman who has to look after her two daughters. In such circumstances, Fahmeeda deserves lesser punishment,” he added.
To this, Nikam argued, “Fahimida, although a woman, participated in the crime willingly and no one had compelled her to assist her husband in terrorist acts.” He cited the judgement of Rajiv Gandhi assassination case in which the convict Nalini was awarded death sentence even though she had delivered a child in the jail.
Defence lawyer Wahab Khan representing Hanif argued that he should be awarded life imprisonment instead of death contending that he had committed the crime under the influence of the members of Lashker-e-Toiba who had indoctrinated him. “Hanif did not have criminal antecedents. He had gone to Dubai to earn bread and butter but was lured into conspiracy by Pakistani nationals after he was shown CDs of atrocities on Muslims,” Wahab said.
The two blasts at Gateway of India, a prominent landmark of this metropolis and Zaveri Bazaar, the glittering gold market of Mumbai - on August 25, 2003 have left 54 dead and 244 injured. RDX-based bombs were placed in taxis to trigger the explosions.
The accused also alleged to have been involved in placing an unexploded bomb in a bus at SEEPZ in suburban Andheri in December 2, 2002 and placing bomb in bus at Ghatkopar in July 28, 2003 in which two persons were killed.
(Source: Tuesday, August 04th, 2009 AT 8:08 PM
Sakal times)
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Confirmation case of two women in Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court is in the midst of hearing the Confirmation case of Deepti Devasthali and Leena Devasthali the daughter and mother respectively who have been convicted by the sessions court for murdering a doctor.
The daughter and mother are presently being represented by amicus curae Ms. Rohini Salian who was appointed by the court after the Appellants had disputes with their earlier counsels.
The matter was heard by the bench of Justice Bilal Nazki and Justice Kumbhakoni initially in 2008 and remanded back to the sessions court for taking further evidence.
The case has come back to the high court after the additional evidence has been recorded and now its being heard before the bench of Justice J.N. Patel and Justice Mridula Bhatkar. The case no is confirmation case no. 1 of 2008. All the orders can be seen on the high court website on the page of the case. The order of Justice Nazki and Justice Kumbhakoni is attached in the link below.
This is the second case in recent years where 2 women are facing death penalty. Earlier the High Court and the Supreme Court have confirmed the death sentence of Gavit sisters fro Kolhapur, Maharashtra.
The daughter and mother are presently being represented by amicus curae Ms. Rohini Salian who was appointed by the court after the Appellants had disputes with their earlier counsels.
The matter was heard by the bench of Justice Bilal Nazki and Justice Kumbhakoni initially in 2008 and remanded back to the sessions court for taking further evidence.
The case has come back to the high court after the additional evidence has been recorded and now its being heard before the bench of Justice J.N. Patel and Justice Mridula Bhatkar. The case no is confirmation case no. 1 of 2008. All the orders can be seen on the high court website on the page of the case. The order of Justice Nazki and Justice Kumbhakoni is attached in the link below.
This is the second case in recent years where 2 women are facing death penalty. Earlier the High Court and the Supreme Court have confirmed the death sentence of Gavit sisters fro Kolhapur, Maharashtra.
KCOCA includes death penalty...
The Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act has now included death penalty for some of the offences. The State legislature has passed the amendments on 31 July 2009. This is the second Bharatiya Janata Party Ruled State which has invoked death penalty for the state law. Last week the Gujarat assembly had included death penalty for the offences relating to illicit liquor in the state.
While the efficacy of death penalty as a punishment is being questioned worldwide the BJP governments continue to expand the scope to petty crimes also.
While the efficacy of death penalty as a punishment is being questioned worldwide the BJP governments continue to expand the scope to petty crimes also.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Gujarat assembly passes bill proposing death penalty for bootleggers
The Gujarat assembly on Tuesday unanimously passed the Bombay Prohibition (Gujarat Amendment Act) 2009 bill that proposes death sentence or life imprisonment for those found guilty of manufacturing and selling illicit liquor in case of death of those who consume the brew in the state.
The new bill follows the death of 136 people after consuming illicit brew in Ahmedabad since July 5.
The Gujarat government proposed an amendment to the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 proposing harsher punishment for those who manufacture and sell illicit liquor resulting in the death of consumers.
The new bill was tabled in the assembly by Minister of State for Home Amit Shah and, after an hour-long discussion, the members unanimously passed the amended bill, which is now called 'Bombay Prohibition (Gujarat Amendment Act) 2009'.
The amended bill has also proposed seven-10 years' imprisonment for those found guilty of manufacturing, selling or distributing country liquor -- in cases where it does not result in the death of any consumer.
Shah told the house that the prohibition policy was proposed by Mahatma Gandhi to the British rulers in 1915. The Congress party during the British rule had promised Mahatma Gandhi that the party would implement prohibition in Gujarat after independence. It was enacted in Gujarat from 1950.
The Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 had undergone amendments in 1964, 1978, 2003 and 2005. The Bombay Prohibition (Gujarat Amendment Act) 2009 also makes it mandatory for the police to send the seized consignment of country liquor to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Gujarat for testing before suitable charges are filed against the culprits. The seized vehicle in which the liquor was carried would be auctioned and the proceeds deposited in the state government treasury, the amended bill states.
The new bill follows the death of 136 people after consuming illicit brew in Ahmedabad since July 5.
The Gujarat government proposed an amendment to the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 proposing harsher punishment for those who manufacture and sell illicit liquor resulting in the death of consumers.
The new bill was tabled in the assembly by Minister of State for Home Amit Shah and, after an hour-long discussion, the members unanimously passed the amended bill, which is now called 'Bombay Prohibition (Gujarat Amendment Act) 2009'.
The amended bill has also proposed seven-10 years' imprisonment for those found guilty of manufacturing, selling or distributing country liquor -- in cases where it does not result in the death of any consumer.
Shah told the house that the prohibition policy was proposed by Mahatma Gandhi to the British rulers in 1915. The Congress party during the British rule had promised Mahatma Gandhi that the party would implement prohibition in Gujarat after independence. It was enacted in Gujarat from 1950.
The Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 had undergone amendments in 1964, 1978, 2003 and 2005. The Bombay Prohibition (Gujarat Amendment Act) 2009 also makes it mandatory for the police to send the seized consignment of country liquor to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Gujarat for testing before suitable charges are filed against the culprits. The seized vehicle in which the liquor was carried would be auctioned and the proceeds deposited in the state government treasury, the amended bill states.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
"I'm not bothered if I hang" says Mumbai gunman
The lone surviving gunman in the Mumbai attacks said today that he was ready to go to the gallows and wanted no mercy from the court for his role in one of India's worst terrorist acts, which left 166 people dead.
"Whatever I have done, I have done in this world. It would be better to be punished in this world. It would be better than God's punishment. That's why I have pleaded guilty," Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani, told the court.
Kasab unexpectedly confessed on Monday to taking part in the three-day attack last November, leaving a trail of carnage across downtown Mumbai, India's financial and entertainment capital.
"If I am hanged for this, I am not bothered. I don't want any mercy from the court. I understand the implications of my accepting the crime," he said.
Read the full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/22/mumbai-terror-attacks-kasab-execution
"Whatever I have done, I have done in this world. It would be better to be punished in this world. It would be better than God's punishment. That's why I have pleaded guilty," Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani, told the court.
Kasab unexpectedly confessed on Monday to taking part in the three-day attack last November, leaving a trail of carnage across downtown Mumbai, India's financial and entertainment capital.
"If I am hanged for this, I am not bothered. I don't want any mercy from the court. I understand the implications of my accepting the crime," he said.
Read the full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/22/mumbai-terror-attacks-kasab-execution
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
President likely to discuss pending mercy petitions with PM
The Indian Express has reported that President Pratibha Patil is likely to discuss the pending mercy petitions before her very soon with the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. There are 26 mercy petitions pending before the president of India.
“The President would like to be apprised of the government’s stand on death penalty, especially in view of the large number of representations received from individuals and organisations such as the Amnesty International and the UN Commission on Human Rights for abolishing death penalty in the country. Before she takes a view on the issue, she intends to hold discussions with the Prime Minister,” a source in the Rashtrapati Bhavan told The Indian Express.
“The President would like to be apprised of the government’s stand on death penalty, especially in view of the large number of representations received from individuals and organisations such as the Amnesty International and the UN Commission on Human Rights for abolishing death penalty in the country. Before she takes a view on the issue, she intends to hold discussions with the Prime Minister,” a source in the Rashtrapati Bhavan told The Indian Express.
Death Penalty for selling liquour
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
6,767 criminals convicted after speedy trial in the first half of 2009
As many as 6,767 criminals have so far been convicted in Bihar this year till June following speedy trial conducted for ensuring quick disposal ofcrime cases. Out of these, 8 criminals were awarded capital punishment and901 were awarded life imprisonment, a police headquarters press note onTuesday said. Patna with 658 convictions, has again topped the list followed by Nalanda(576) and Muzaffarpur 453). These figures are based on the convictionstill June this year. In 2008, too, Patna had topped the list and a total of 1,301 criminalswere convicted here after speedy trial. The state government, in its moveto bring criminals to terms, launched a special drive for speedy trial incriminal cases in 2006 which so far has delivered very good results. In the launching year, a total of 6,839 criminals were convicted and thefigure went up to 9,853 in 2007. The tempo was maintained in 2008 during which a total of 12,007 criminals were convicted in Bihar. Having crossed the 6,700mark in the first 6 months of the current year,the state is likely to improve its performance compared to the previousyear. What should work as a deterrent for the criminals is the fact thatout of a total conviction of 35,466 criminals between January 2006 andJune 2009, a whopping 6,765 have been awarded life imprisonment and 91 ofthem capital punishment.
(Source: The Times of India, 8 July)
(Source: The Times of India, 8 July)
Sarabjit’s mercy plea to Zardari on Wed
LAHORE: Indian death row prisoner Sarabjit Singh’s lawyer will file a fresh mercy petition before Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari on Wednesday in the wake of the Pakistan Supreme Court dismissing his appeal against the capital punishment.
Owais Sheikh, the new counsel for Sarabjit, said the petition seeking clemency for the Indian national will include a letter addressed to Zardari by the condemned man.
“I will file the mercy petition on Wednesday. I have also sought a meeting with the President so I can take up the matter with him personally,” Sheikh said on Monday.
Sheikh said the petition will include a letter from Sarabjit in which he has asked the President to pardon him on humanitarian grounds. PTI
Sarabjit has already spent 19 yrs in prison.
(Source: Mumbai Mirror 7th July 2009)
Supreme Court: Execution by hanging to continue
Hanging by the neck till death would continue to be the mode of execution of condemned prisoners, SC said on Monday refusing to entertain a PIL seeking replacement of the cruel and painful method with the lethal injection, a method practised in the US.
"How do you know that hanging causes pain? And how do you know that injecting the condemned prisoner with a lethal drug would not cause pain?" asked a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam.
PIL petitioner Ashok Kumar Walia probably thought that the bench was mistaking his plea and tried to impress upon the court by arguing that he was not seeking abolition of death penalty but only a change in the manner of execution of prisoners on the death row.
But, it appeared that the bench understood the implications of the plea and said it has been opined that hanging, which involved dropping the prisoner with the noose around the neck several feet down so as to dislocate his neck and sever the spinal cord, also caused instant death.
The CJI said: "Many countries, still practising death penalty, have various methods of execution death squad which guns down a condemned prisoner from close range, hanging by the neck, electric chair and by injecting a lethal drug."
"In India, we have a very, very liberal sentencing system based on a humane law. The courts in rarest of the rare cases award death sentence," the bench said. Before dismissing the PIL, the court told the petitioner to create public opinion for the abolition of capital punishment.
India last carried out the death sentence in 2004 when Dhananjoy Chatterjee was hanged to death for rape and murder of 14-year-old school student Hetal Parekh in 1990.
(Source: The Times of India, 7 July)
"How do you know that hanging causes pain? And how do you know that injecting the condemned prisoner with a lethal drug would not cause pain?" asked a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam.
PIL petitioner Ashok Kumar Walia probably thought that the bench was mistaking his plea and tried to impress upon the court by arguing that he was not seeking abolition of death penalty but only a change in the manner of execution of prisoners on the death row.
But, it appeared that the bench understood the implications of the plea and said it has been opined that hanging, which involved dropping the prisoner with the noose around the neck several feet down so as to dislocate his neck and sever the spinal cord, also caused instant death.
The CJI said: "Many countries, still practising death penalty, have various methods of execution death squad which guns down a condemned prisoner from close range, hanging by the neck, electric chair and by injecting a lethal drug."
"In India, we have a very, very liberal sentencing system based on a humane law. The courts in rarest of the rare cases award death sentence," the bench said. Before dismissing the PIL, the court told the petitioner to create public opinion for the abolition of capital punishment.
India last carried out the death sentence in 2004 when Dhananjoy Chatterjee was hanged to death for rape and murder of 14-year-old school student Hetal Parekh in 1990.
(Source: The Times of India, 7 July)
Monday, June 22, 2009
End the Death Penalty for Drug-Related Offenses: Human Rights Watch
As the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking approaches on June 26, the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN), of which Amnesty International is a member, Human Rights Watch and the International Harm Reduction Association call upon governments in Asia to cease applying the death penalty for drug-related offenses.
There is a clear, longstanding and worldwide move toward restriction or abolition of the death penalty. Only a small minority of countries continue to implement the death penalty: in 2008, 25 countries carried out executions. ADPAN, Human Rights Watch and the International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA) oppose the death penalty in all cases as a violation of fundamental rights - the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.
Sixteen countries in Asia apply the death penalty for drug-related offenses. As many countries in the region do not make information on the death penalty available, it is impossible to calculate exactly how many drug-related death sentences are imposed. However, in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand, reports indicate that a high proportion of death sentences are imposed upon those convicted of drug offenses. ADPAN, Human Rights Watch, and the IHRA express particular concern that China, Indonesia, and Vietnam continue to execute individuals for drug offenses -
and that some countries, such as China since the early 1990s, and Indonesia in 2008, have marked the occasion of June 26 with such executions.
Despite the executions in Asia, there is no clear evidence of a decline in drug trafficking that could be attributed to the threat or use of the death penalty. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters serious crime in general more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996 and 2002, concluded: "... research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a
whole gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis."
UN human rights mechanisms - including the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, and the UN Human Rights Committee - have concluded that the death penalty for drug offenses fails to meet the condition of "most serious crime", under which the death penalty is allowed only as an "exceptional measure" where "there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life" (UN Doc, A/HRC/4/20, 29 January 2007, para 53). The UN high commissioner for human rights and the director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime have likewise expressed
grave concerns about the application of the death penalty for drug offenses.
Death sentences are often handed down after unfair legal processes, a problem made worse by laws, policies or practices regulating drug offenses in some Asian countries. Mandatory death sentences are applied for certain drug offenses in Brunei, India, Laos, Singapore, and Malaysia, leaving a judge with no discretion over the sentence for defendants found guilty.
Mandatory death sentences violate international standards on fair trials. Individualized sentencing is required to prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment and the arbitrary deprivation of life. Singapore, which has one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world, as well as Malaysia, continue to hand down death sentences to individuals alleged to be drug traffickers after trials that presume guilt, and in which death sentences are mandatory.
Confessions that have been coerced sometimes form the basis of guilty verdicts, death sentences and executions. Competent legal assistance is unavailable to many defendants, including defendants facing drugs-related charges, leaving many with little capacity to mount a defense at any stage of the proceedings.
Draconian penalties for drug offenses, including the death penalty, hinder public health programs that reduce the harm drugs may cause to individual drug users, their loved ones, communities, and states. China, Malaysia, and Vietnam have recently stepped up their harm reduction programs to reduce HIV, hepatitis C and other drug-related health and social harms. However, excessive punishments and overly repressive drug law enforcement have been shown time and again to drive target groups away from such services. The death penalty therefore not only violates the right to life of those condemned, but is actually counterproductive to efforts to reduce the harm caused by drugs.
On the occasion of UN Anti-Drugs Day 2009, ADPAN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the IHRA appeal to Asian governments to:
Introduce an immediate moratorium on executions with a view to the abolition of the death penalty in line with UN General Assembly resolution 62/149 and 63/168 on "moratorium on the use of the death penalty";
Commute all death sentences, including for drug offenses;
Remove provisions within their domestic legislation that allow for the
death penalty for drug offenses;
Abolish the use of mandatory sentencing in capital cases;
Publicize statistics on the death penalty and facts around the
administration of justice in death penalty cases; and
Use the occasion of Anti-Drugs Day 2009 to highlight public health
policies that have proven effective in reducing drug-related harms.
(Source: Human Rights Watch, 23 June)
There is a clear, longstanding and worldwide move toward restriction or abolition of the death penalty. Only a small minority of countries continue to implement the death penalty: in 2008, 25 countries carried out executions. ADPAN, Human Rights Watch and the International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA) oppose the death penalty in all cases as a violation of fundamental rights - the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.
Sixteen countries in Asia apply the death penalty for drug-related offenses. As many countries in the region do not make information on the death penalty available, it is impossible to calculate exactly how many drug-related death sentences are imposed. However, in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand, reports indicate that a high proportion of death sentences are imposed upon those convicted of drug offenses. ADPAN, Human Rights Watch, and the IHRA express particular concern that China, Indonesia, and Vietnam continue to execute individuals for drug offenses -
and that some countries, such as China since the early 1990s, and Indonesia in 2008, have marked the occasion of June 26 with such executions.
Despite the executions in Asia, there is no clear evidence of a decline in drug trafficking that could be attributed to the threat or use of the death penalty. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters serious crime in general more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996 and 2002, concluded: "... research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a
whole gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis."
UN human rights mechanisms - including the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, and the UN Human Rights Committee - have concluded that the death penalty for drug offenses fails to meet the condition of "most serious crime", under which the death penalty is allowed only as an "exceptional measure" where "there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life" (UN Doc, A/HRC/4/20, 29 January 2007, para 53). The UN high commissioner for human rights and the director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime have likewise expressed
grave concerns about the application of the death penalty for drug offenses.
Death sentences are often handed down after unfair legal processes, a problem made worse by laws, policies or practices regulating drug offenses in some Asian countries. Mandatory death sentences are applied for certain drug offenses in Brunei, India, Laos, Singapore, and Malaysia, leaving a judge with no discretion over the sentence for defendants found guilty.
Mandatory death sentences violate international standards on fair trials. Individualized sentencing is required to prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment and the arbitrary deprivation of life. Singapore, which has one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world, as well as Malaysia, continue to hand down death sentences to individuals alleged to be drug traffickers after trials that presume guilt, and in which death sentences are mandatory.
Confessions that have been coerced sometimes form the basis of guilty verdicts, death sentences and executions. Competent legal assistance is unavailable to many defendants, including defendants facing drugs-related charges, leaving many with little capacity to mount a defense at any stage of the proceedings.
Draconian penalties for drug offenses, including the death penalty, hinder public health programs that reduce the harm drugs may cause to individual drug users, their loved ones, communities, and states. China, Malaysia, and Vietnam have recently stepped up their harm reduction programs to reduce HIV, hepatitis C and other drug-related health and social harms. However, excessive punishments and overly repressive drug law enforcement have been shown time and again to drive target groups away from such services. The death penalty therefore not only violates the right to life of those condemned, but is actually counterproductive to efforts to reduce the harm caused by drugs.
On the occasion of UN Anti-Drugs Day 2009, ADPAN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the IHRA appeal to Asian governments to:
Introduce an immediate moratorium on executions with a view to the abolition of the death penalty in line with UN General Assembly resolution 62/149 and 63/168 on "moratorium on the use of the death penalty";
Commute all death sentences, including for drug offenses;
Remove provisions within their domestic legislation that allow for the
death penalty for drug offenses;
Abolish the use of mandatory sentencing in capital cases;
Publicize statistics on the death penalty and facts around the
administration of justice in death penalty cases; and
Use the occasion of Anti-Drugs Day 2009 to highlight public health
policies that have proven effective in reducing drug-related harms.
(Source: Human Rights Watch, 23 June)
'Village court pronounces death penalty on witch'
The people of Dumurkotha, a tribal village, finally realized on Tuesday that the 3 women, branded as witches, will just not be able to revive Mamoni Murmu, who died on Saturday. Also, the kangaroo court sentenced one of the women, it described as the chief witch, to death. And, the village chiefs decided to bury Mamoni, as stench from her nearly decomposed body was creating problems.
They will also hold a kangaroo court regarding the action to be taken against the 3 women Sombari Mandi, Mukhi Mandi and Arati Murmu who had been locked up in a room with Mamoni's corpse since Saturday night and were released after 3 days.
"Mamoni went to bathe in a pond on May 30 with her maternal aunt. After that, she fell sick. We came to know that those three witches used evil forces with Mamoni's hair as strands of that were found on the soap she had used for her bath," said Baidyanath Murmu, Mamoni's father.
That was enough to sow the seeds of superstition. For, some of the villagers alleged that Mamoni mumbled the names of the 3 witches' repeatedly. Dumurkotha became dead sure that the 3 witches were responsible for Mamoni's death. Witch doctor, Uday Mondal, of Andharjora village, too, accused the 3 women of killing the girl.
On Tuesday, villagers freed Mukhi Mandi and Arati Murmu and identified Sombari Mandi as the chief witch, who was sentenced to death. She tried her best to convince the village chiefs and the villagers that it was a conspiracy against her. But nobody paid attention to her cry and some annoyed villagers even beat her up and none came to Sombari's rescue.
"I just got the information from your end. Actually, that area is troubled. I will try to send staff from the Binpur-I BDO office," said Narayan Swaroop Nigam, the West Midnapore district magistrate, on Monday.
Police did not come, citing their boycott by the villagers. Sombari, who was subjected to two hours of mental and physical torture by the kangaroo court, somehow managed to flee from the village. "The district administration will provide her with security if Mandi wants to live there again," assured Nigam.
(Source: The Times of India, 10 June)
They will also hold a kangaroo court regarding the action to be taken against the 3 women Sombari Mandi, Mukhi Mandi and Arati Murmu who had been locked up in a room with Mamoni's corpse since Saturday night and were released after 3 days.
"Mamoni went to bathe in a pond on May 30 with her maternal aunt. After that, she fell sick. We came to know that those three witches used evil forces with Mamoni's hair as strands of that were found on the soap she had used for her bath," said Baidyanath Murmu, Mamoni's father.
That was enough to sow the seeds of superstition. For, some of the villagers alleged that Mamoni mumbled the names of the 3 witches' repeatedly. Dumurkotha became dead sure that the 3 witches were responsible for Mamoni's death. Witch doctor, Uday Mondal, of Andharjora village, too, accused the 3 women of killing the girl.
On Tuesday, villagers freed Mukhi Mandi and Arati Murmu and identified Sombari Mandi as the chief witch, who was sentenced to death. She tried her best to convince the village chiefs and the villagers that it was a conspiracy against her. But nobody paid attention to her cry and some annoyed villagers even beat her up and none came to Sombari's rescue.
"I just got the information from your end. Actually, that area is troubled. I will try to send staff from the Binpur-I BDO office," said Narayan Swaroop Nigam, the West Midnapore district magistrate, on Monday.
Police did not come, citing their boycott by the villagers. Sombari, who was subjected to two hours of mental and physical torture by the kangaroo court, somehow managed to flee from the village. "The district administration will provide her with security if Mandi wants to live there again," assured Nigam.
(Source: The Times of India, 10 June)
Supreme Court: Capital punishment law unconstitutional
While striking off the death penalty of an accused in a 2001 kidnapping-and-murder case, the apex court has termed the capital punishment law "uncertain" and "falling foul of constitutional due process and equality principle."
Observing a "global move" away from death penalty, a division bench of SB Sinha and Cyraic Joseph suggested on May 13 -- "Credible research, perhaps by the Law Commission of India or the National Human Rights Commission, may allow for an up-to-date and informed discussion and debate on the subject." The ruling was made in a case where one Karthikraj Ramraj was kidnapped for a ransom and murdered by his friends, Santosh Bariyar,Sanjeevkumar Roy and Santoshkumar Roy in Bariyar's Pune residence. The Pune trial court in 2005 convicted all 3 accused. While Sanjeevkumar and Santoshkumar were sentenced to life, Bariyar was sentenced to death. This order was upheld by the Bombay high court.
The bench stated the method of weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances hasn't worked well "to remove the vice of arbitrariness" of our system.
The court observed that courts should provide clear evidence on why a convict is not fit for any reformatory or rehabilitation scheme before awarding capital punishment.
(Source: DNA India, 7 June)
Observing a "global move" away from death penalty, a division bench of SB Sinha and Cyraic Joseph suggested on May 13 -- "Credible research, perhaps by the Law Commission of India or the National Human Rights Commission, may allow for an up-to-date and informed discussion and debate on the subject." The ruling was made in a case where one Karthikraj Ramraj was kidnapped for a ransom and murdered by his friends, Santosh Bariyar,Sanjeevkumar Roy and Santoshkumar Roy in Bariyar's Pune residence. The Pune trial court in 2005 convicted all 3 accused. While Sanjeevkumar and Santoshkumar were sentenced to life, Bariyar was sentenced to death. This order was upheld by the Bombay high court.
The bench stated the method of weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances hasn't worked well "to remove the vice of arbitrariness" of our system.
The court observed that courts should provide clear evidence on why a convict is not fit for any reformatory or rehabilitation scheme before awarding capital punishment.
(Source: DNA India, 7 June)
Monday, June 1, 2009
Gruesome act does not mean 'rarest of rare' : SC
In a judgment having far-reaching consequences for married people having illicit relationships, the Supreme Court has quashed the death sentence of two people who killed the husband of a woman with whom they had an illicit relationship and three of his sons at a gurdwara in Punjab 15 years ago.
While upholding the state high court's reduction of death penalty to life imprisonment for Kamaljit Singh and Manjit Singh, sewadars at gurdwara Bara Sirhind in Sirhind, a bench of justices Mukundakam Sharma and BS Chauhan said that their behaviour was "driven more by infatuation". They did not find the brutal killings in this case as being "rarest of rare".
"Though the act is a gruesome one, it was a result of human mind going astray. No doubt, they acted in a ghastly manner for which, in our considered view, they have been adequately punished," the judges said while upholding the high court order that modified the death sentence to life imprisonment.
Their paramour, Bhinder Kaur, was also an accused and has been sentenced to life. Married to Sewa Singh, the municipal commissioner of Sirhind City, Bhinder Kaur's extra-marital relationship with the accused did not escape her family. She had to cut down her meetings with Kamaljit and Manjit. Bhinder Kaur had three grown-up sons, Rachhpal Singh alias Happy, Inderjit Singh and Kuldeep Singh, who too served at the gurdwara.
After she told them the reason she was not able to meet them, the accused "lost their balance and acted in a cruel manner" by entering Sewa Singh's house at night and killing him there. The three sons were killed in the gurdwara. For a case to be regarded as "rarest of rare", the court observed, after committing one offence another offence is committed to cover up the first one.
While upholding the state high court's reduction of death penalty to life imprisonment for Kamaljit Singh and Manjit Singh, sewadars at gurdwara Bara Sirhind in Sirhind, a bench of justices Mukundakam Sharma and BS Chauhan said that their behaviour was "driven more by infatuation". They did not find the brutal killings in this case as being "rarest of rare".
"Though the act is a gruesome one, it was a result of human mind going astray. No doubt, they acted in a ghastly manner for which, in our considered view, they have been adequately punished," the judges said while upholding the high court order that modified the death sentence to life imprisonment.
Their paramour, Bhinder Kaur, was also an accused and has been sentenced to life. Married to Sewa Singh, the municipal commissioner of Sirhind City, Bhinder Kaur's extra-marital relationship with the accused did not escape her family. She had to cut down her meetings with Kamaljit and Manjit. Bhinder Kaur had three grown-up sons, Rachhpal Singh alias Happy, Inderjit Singh and Kuldeep Singh, who too served at the gurdwara.
After she told them the reason she was not able to meet them, the accused "lost their balance and acted in a cruel manner" by entering Sewa Singh's house at night and killing him there. The three sons were killed in the gurdwara. For a case to be regarded as "rarest of rare", the court observed, after committing one offence another offence is committed to cover up the first one.
Mercy Petition Withdrawn
This news item was reported in the sunday Indian Express on 31 May 2009. It clearly states that the person on the death row is fed up with the conditions she has been forced to live in and thats the only reason she wants the death sentence to be carried out. She has voluntarily withdrawn the mercy petition filed before the President of India but it highlights the plight of the persons on death row across India and the conditions they are kept in. Below are the excerpts from the article and the link to the article.
Almost five years after she and her husband were convicted for murdering eight people, including her father, former independent MLA in Haryana Relu Ram Punia, and three children, Sonia wants to be hanged at the earliest. And she may get her wish too.
For, following her letter seeking rejection of her mercy petition, Union Home Minister P Chidambaram has written to President Pratibha Patil recommending that the mercy petitions of the husband and wife be rejected and the death sentence carried out.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/let-me-die-says-woman-on-death-row-for-killing-8-govt-tells-president-show-no-mercy/468634/
Almost five years after she and her husband were convicted for murdering eight people, including her father, former independent MLA in Haryana Relu Ram Punia, and three children, Sonia wants to be hanged at the earliest. And she may get her wish too.
For, following her letter seeking rejection of her mercy petition, Union Home Minister P Chidambaram has written to President Pratibha Patil recommending that the mercy petitions of the husband and wife be rejected and the death sentence carried out.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/let-me-die-says-woman-on-death-row-for-killing-8-govt-tells-president-show-no-mercy/468634/
Thursday, May 28, 2009
SC censures NHRC for interfering in judicial work
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday censured the apex human rights body for interfering in the judicial sentencing system by recommending to the Assam governor to commute the capital punishment awarded to a murderer to life imprisonment. On the recommendation of the National Human Rights Commission, the governor had commuted the death sentence of one Rajnath Chauhan aka Ramdeo Chauhan to life imprisonment. This decision was challenged in the SC by the victim's family.
A Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and A K Ganguly reversed the governor's order and asked him to reconsider his decision in the light of an earlier judgment of the apex court relating to exercise of the constitutional power on clemency.
The Bench asked a basic question to NHRC -- "Who has violated the human rights of Chauhan?" Terming the human rights body's response, "when any action violated the human rights, there can be violation of the human rights", as evasive, the Bench said such a situation was not conceivable since the cause of the alleged violation of the human rights was the SC's judgment awarding him death penalty.
Terming the recommendation of NHRC as "without sanction of law", the Bench said the proceedings initiated by the apex human rights body were not in line with the procedure prescribed in the NHRC Act. "That being so, the recommendations, if any, by the NHRC are non est," it said.
"The State of Assam has indicated that not only the recommendations of the NHRC but several other aspects have been taken note of. But, the order directing commutation does not indicate any reason. This is contrary to what has been stated by the apex court," said Justice Pasayat, writing the judgment for the Bench.
"We, therefore, set aside the order of commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment and direct reconsideration of the application filed by Chauhan for commutation of sentence," the Bench said.
(Source: TIMES OF INDIA 9 May 2009, 0201 hrs IST, Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN)
A Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and A K Ganguly reversed the governor's order and asked him to reconsider his decision in the light of an earlier judgment of the apex court relating to exercise of the constitutional power on clemency.
The Bench asked a basic question to NHRC -- "Who has violated the human rights of Chauhan?" Terming the human rights body's response, "when any action violated the human rights, there can be violation of the human rights", as evasive, the Bench said such a situation was not conceivable since the cause of the alleged violation of the human rights was the SC's judgment awarding him death penalty.
Terming the recommendation of NHRC as "without sanction of law", the Bench said the proceedings initiated by the apex human rights body were not in line with the procedure prescribed in the NHRC Act. "That being so, the recommendations, if any, by the NHRC are non est," it said.
"The State of Assam has indicated that not only the recommendations of the NHRC but several other aspects have been taken note of. But, the order directing commutation does not indicate any reason. This is contrary to what has been stated by the apex court," said Justice Pasayat, writing the judgment for the Bench.
"We, therefore, set aside the order of commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment and direct reconsideration of the application filed by Chauhan for commutation of sentence," the Bench said.
(Source: TIMES OF INDIA 9 May 2009, 0201 hrs IST, Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN)
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Landmark Supreme Court case
The Supreme Court case of Santosh Bariyar v State of Maharashtra was decided on 13 May 2009 in a judgment delivered by Justice S.B Sinha. The case is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court which places strict limitations on the circumstances in which a death sentence may be handed down.
The Supreme Court revisits the Bachan Singh judgment and finds that Bachan Singh requires a mandatory pre-sentence hearing stage in cases where the death penalty may be given. At the pre-sentence hearing evidence on sentencing must be adduced. This evidence must relate not only to the crime, but also the criminal, including his or her socio-economic background. This marks a significant restriction on the sentencing powers of the courts in death penalty cases. In order for a death sentence to be awarded the prosecution must show that the alternative option of life imprisonment is foreclosed. In practice this means that the prosecution must show that the rehabilitation of the defendant is impossible.
Some excerpts of the Santosh Bariyar judgment are set out below:
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of individualised sentencing in death penalty cases. It then went on to extend the ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine to the sentencing stage of a death penalty case. The Court emphasized the importance of examining all the evidence in the case at the sentencing stage of the case.
The Court observed that:
“…what is sorely lacking, in most capital sentencing cases, is information relating to characteristics and socio-economic background of the offender… Circumstances which may not have been pertinent in conviction can also play an important role in the selection of sentence”.
One such circumstance is the probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The Court, interpreting Bachan Singh noted that:
“Bachan Singh laid down a fundamental threshold in the following terms:
“A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.”
The Court went on to observe that:
“An analytical reading of this formulation would reveal it to be an authoritative negative precept. “Rarest of rare cases” is an exceptionally narrow opening provided in the domain of this negative precept. This opening is also qualified by another condition in form of “when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed”. Thus, in essence, rarest of rare dictum imposes a wide-ranging embargo on award of death punishment, which can only be revoked if the facts of the case successfully satisfy double qualification enumerated below:
that the case belongs to the rarest of rare category;
and the alternative option of life imprisonment will just not suffice in the facts of the case”
The Court then stated that the rarest of rare dictum entrenches the policy that life imprisonment is the rule and death punishment is an exception and that the rarest of rare dictum places an extraordinary burden on the court, in case it selects death punishment as the favoured penalty, to carry out an objective assessment of facts to satisfy the exceptions ingrained in the rarest of rare dictum.
“The background analysis leading to the conclusion that the case belongs to rarest of rare category must conform to highest standards of judicial rigor and thoroughness as the norm under analysis is an exceptionally narrow exception”.
The Supreme Court examined a range of cases in which the death penalty had been awarded and a number of cases in which defendants convicted of murder received life sentences and noted the lack of uniformity in sentencing:
“It can be safely said that the Bachan Singh threshold of “rarest of rare cases” has been most variedly and inconsistently applied by the various High Courts as also this court. At this point we also wish to point out that the uncertainty in the law of capital sentencing has special consequence as the matter relates to death penalty – the gravest penalty arriving out of the exercise of extraordinarily wide sentencing discretion, which is irrevocable in nature. This extremely uneven application of Bachan Singh has given rise to a state of uncertainty in capital sentencing law which clearly falls foul of constitutional due process and equality principle”.
The full text of the judgment is available at: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg5pxzvr_52c2kcrqdp
The Supreme Court revisits the Bachan Singh judgment and finds that Bachan Singh requires a mandatory pre-sentence hearing stage in cases where the death penalty may be given. At the pre-sentence hearing evidence on sentencing must be adduced. This evidence must relate not only to the crime, but also the criminal, including his or her socio-economic background. This marks a significant restriction on the sentencing powers of the courts in death penalty cases. In order for a death sentence to be awarded the prosecution must show that the alternative option of life imprisonment is foreclosed. In practice this means that the prosecution must show that the rehabilitation of the defendant is impossible.
Some excerpts of the Santosh Bariyar judgment are set out below:
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of individualised sentencing in death penalty cases. It then went on to extend the ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine to the sentencing stage of a death penalty case. The Court emphasized the importance of examining all the evidence in the case at the sentencing stage of the case.
The Court observed that:
“…what is sorely lacking, in most capital sentencing cases, is information relating to characteristics and socio-economic background of the offender… Circumstances which may not have been pertinent in conviction can also play an important role in the selection of sentence”.
One such circumstance is the probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The Court, interpreting Bachan Singh noted that:
“Bachan Singh laid down a fundamental threshold in the following terms:
“A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.”
The Court went on to observe that:
“An analytical reading of this formulation would reveal it to be an authoritative negative precept. “Rarest of rare cases” is an exceptionally narrow opening provided in the domain of this negative precept. This opening is also qualified by another condition in form of “when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed”. Thus, in essence, rarest of rare dictum imposes a wide-ranging embargo on award of death punishment, which can only be revoked if the facts of the case successfully satisfy double qualification enumerated below:
that the case belongs to the rarest of rare category;
and the alternative option of life imprisonment will just not suffice in the facts of the case”
The Court then stated that the rarest of rare dictum entrenches the policy that life imprisonment is the rule and death punishment is an exception and that the rarest of rare dictum places an extraordinary burden on the court, in case it selects death punishment as the favoured penalty, to carry out an objective assessment of facts to satisfy the exceptions ingrained in the rarest of rare dictum.
“The background analysis leading to the conclusion that the case belongs to rarest of rare category must conform to highest standards of judicial rigor and thoroughness as the norm under analysis is an exceptionally narrow exception”.
The Supreme Court examined a range of cases in which the death penalty had been awarded and a number of cases in which defendants convicted of murder received life sentences and noted the lack of uniformity in sentencing:
“It can be safely said that the Bachan Singh threshold of “rarest of rare cases” has been most variedly and inconsistently applied by the various High Courts as also this court. At this point we also wish to point out that the uncertainty in the law of capital sentencing has special consequence as the matter relates to death penalty – the gravest penalty arriving out of the exercise of extraordinarily wide sentencing discretion, which is irrevocable in nature. This extremely uneven application of Bachan Singh has given rise to a state of uncertainty in capital sentencing law which clearly falls foul of constitutional due process and equality principle”.
The full text of the judgment is available at: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg5pxzvr_52c2kcrqdp
Monday, May 25, 2009
Article by Death row inmate
This a piece written by yet another inmate on death row...We seriously hope that the system changes
Tears of Blood written by Death row inmate
This is an article written by Santosh Bariyar who was on death row. Very recently his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court.
(Translation of Hindi)
To hang a person to death after death sentence is given and to wait for the punishment to occur are two different things. If we are given death sentence immediately then all the complaints, sadness are gone in a while, even the family cries for some time and then get back to normal life.
But waiting for this sentence for a long period is a sad thing. We can feel the noose around our neck all the while. Sometimes we are also hopeful that we will be able to live life. But there are also times when my whole body shivers when I think of about being hanged. After all what can we do? We have to live life smiling or by crying… atleast for the family we have to smile.
More than us it is our family that goes through this mental agony. They must be thinking day and night when our child will be freed from this trap. Keeping the small child in mind, they make good food during festivals but neither my parents nor my wife can eat a morsel of it. How do they face the neighbours and society everyday? They all must be thinking that, “Their son or her husband must be a ruthless criminal or else why would the State give him death penalty?” our family must be listening to all the taunts of the society and must be crying for us day and night. Thinking about our family my heart cries out tears of blood…but what can we do? We cannot do anything afterall…
We have placed all these sorrows in our hearts and have made them the strength to move on ahead with life. We also have tiny hope that someday our country or the leaders of our country will also take into consideration sinners like us. We will be fortunate if one day we are allowed to return to the society?
Shinde Brothers Death penalty
These are the news reports that appeared in the local Marathi newspaper at Aurangabad (Bhokardan) on 1st May 2009. These reports state that the Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentence of Ankush Maruthi Shinde, Raja Appa Shinde and Raju Mhosu Shinde. This report also mentions the details of the crime.
The other three brothers (Ambadas Lakshman Shinde, Bapu Appa Shinde and Surya aka Suresh Nagu Shinde)were given life sentence however, their life sentence was converted to a death sentence at the Supreme Court. The Judges for this hearing was Justice Dr. Arijith Pasayath and Justice A.K.Mangoki
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Research studies
Death Penalty: A Human Rights Perspective
By: Reena Mary George
Guided by: Retired Justice Hosbet Suresh
Considering that the use of death penalty in India is a threat to fundamental human rights, the topic of this study, “Death Penalty: A Human Rights Perspective” is crucial. The main objectives was to study the impact of death penalty on the social, mental, and physical being of the inmate and to study the perception of opinion leaders on death penalty with reference to human rights. The study also sought to tackle the following questions: What are the living conditions of the death penalty inmates? In what ways does the current operation of death penalty in India conflicts with human rights? What are the alternatives to death penalty? What way can the study give them an opportunity to speak about their lives; their hardships as a death row inmate?
The inmates were contacted after seeking permission from the Director Inspector General. Data from the inmates was collected through prison visits. This study used a case study method. The study includes incerpts by the death row inmates themselves. It also captures the journey of the researcher in an Indian Prison Setting and the opposition by State to carry this study. The findings show that their family, their mental capacities and their physical health have been impacted in a very negative way. It further reveals the living conditions of prisoners in solitary confinement, incidents of torture to extract confession and the death row phenomenon.
It concludes with certain questions raised by the death row inmates. The recommendation is to abolish death penalty however in the interim period; there are certain facilities that the inmates should receive. It spells out that the State should be held guilty of killing people in their custody. India needs to recognise that we have a very bad standing in the world if we treat our fellow beings by hanging them and killing them in the most degrading, humiliating and cruel way. If India has pledged for a larger cause of humanity, why does it not keep her promise? Why should India wait for the rest of the world to shame us into abolishing death penalty?
By: Reena Mary George
Guided by: Retired Justice Hosbet Suresh
Considering that the use of death penalty in India is a threat to fundamental human rights, the topic of this study, “Death Penalty: A Human Rights Perspective” is crucial. The main objectives was to study the impact of death penalty on the social, mental, and physical being of the inmate and to study the perception of opinion leaders on death penalty with reference to human rights. The study also sought to tackle the following questions: What are the living conditions of the death penalty inmates? In what ways does the current operation of death penalty in India conflicts with human rights? What are the alternatives to death penalty? What way can the study give them an opportunity to speak about their lives; their hardships as a death row inmate?
The inmates were contacted after seeking permission from the Director Inspector General. Data from the inmates was collected through prison visits. This study used a case study method. The study includes incerpts by the death row inmates themselves. It also captures the journey of the researcher in an Indian Prison Setting and the opposition by State to carry this study. The findings show that their family, their mental capacities and their physical health have been impacted in a very negative way. It further reveals the living conditions of prisoners in solitary confinement, incidents of torture to extract confession and the death row phenomenon.
It concludes with certain questions raised by the death row inmates. The recommendation is to abolish death penalty however in the interim period; there are certain facilities that the inmates should receive. It spells out that the State should be held guilty of killing people in their custody. India needs to recognise that we have a very bad standing in the world if we treat our fellow beings by hanging them and killing them in the most degrading, humiliating and cruel way. If India has pledged for a larger cause of humanity, why does it not keep her promise? Why should India wait for the rest of the world to shame us into abolishing death penalty?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Supreme Court questions deterrent value of death penalty
The Supreme Court on Friday reduced the death sentence handed to anaccused in the 2001 abduction and murder case of national tennis champion S Kartikraj, to life imprisonment, and raised questions about the efficacy of capital punishment. The tennis champ was abducted in Pune by four accused, one of whom, Kumar Gaurav, turned approver. They demanded a ransom of Rs 7 lakh. The accused, who were Kartikraj's room-mates in college, lured him to a particular place on the pretext of giving him a party. When he reached there, they kidnapped him, tortured him for 2 hours and killed him on August 8, 2001. They cut his body into pieces, stuffed them in plastic bags and disposed the bags at different places. A Pune court sentenced Santosh Bariyar to death, and handed life imprisonment terms to Sanjeev and Santosh Roy. In2005, the Bombay High Court upheld the Pune court's order. In the SC, defence lawyers pointed out that neither the trial court nor the High Court had given reasons, which is required under the law, for finding Bariyar's case fit for the extreme penalty of death and handing a lesser punishment to his two friends, who played an equally evil role in the murder.
Holding that life imprisonment is a rule while death sentence is an exception, a bench of Justices SB Sinha and Cyriac Joseph said though the manner and method of disposal of Kartikraj's body was "abhorrent and goes a long way in making the present case a most foul and despicable case of murder" but mere mode of disposal of a dead body may not by itself be made the ground for inclusion of a case in the 'rarest of rare' category for imposing a death sentence. There are other factors to be considered before handing out the capital sentence, the judges held. The apex court cited another judgment dealing with one Ravindra Trimbak Chouthmal from Maharashtra who had killed his wife over dowry. Chouthmal had severed his wife's head and cut her body into 9 pieces and disposed them. The court then expressed doubts over the efficacy of the deterrent effect of capital punishment and commuted the death sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for life. In the absence of any significant empirical attention to deterrence and severity of the extreme penalty by Indian criminologists, the judgment stated, "We cannot assume that severity of punishment correlates to deterrence to an extent which justifies the restriction of the most fundamental human right to life and liberty through the imposition of the death penalty." It added, "The goal of crime reduction can be achieved by better police and prosecution service to the same or at least to a great extent than bythe imposition of the death penalty."
(Source: DNA India, 16 May 2009)
Holding that life imprisonment is a rule while death sentence is an exception, a bench of Justices SB Sinha and Cyriac Joseph said though the manner and method of disposal of Kartikraj's body was "abhorrent and goes a long way in making the present case a most foul and despicable case of murder" but mere mode of disposal of a dead body may not by itself be made the ground for inclusion of a case in the 'rarest of rare' category for imposing a death sentence. There are other factors to be considered before handing out the capital sentence, the judges held. The apex court cited another judgment dealing with one Ravindra Trimbak Chouthmal from Maharashtra who had killed his wife over dowry. Chouthmal had severed his wife's head and cut her body into 9 pieces and disposed them. The court then expressed doubts over the efficacy of the deterrent effect of capital punishment and commuted the death sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for life. In the absence of any significant empirical attention to deterrence and severity of the extreme penalty by Indian criminologists, the judgment stated, "We cannot assume that severity of punishment correlates to deterrence to an extent which justifies the restriction of the most fundamental human right to life and liberty through the imposition of the death penalty." It added, "The goal of crime reduction can be achieved by better police and prosecution service to the same or at least to a great extent than bythe imposition of the death penalty."
(Source: DNA India, 16 May 2009)
Kasab: Nikam for death, Kasab's lawyer prefers lifer
Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam and lawyer Abbas Kazmi defending Pakistani gunman accused in November 26 terror attack case are not only in opposite camps but also hold divergent views on capital punishment. While Nikam said capital punishment should be awarded to convicts in serious crimes like terror cases and should be expedited, Kazmi opined that punishment should be reformative. Nikam said death penalty is awarded where there is no scope for reversal and a convict is unlikely to be reformed in society. But if appeals against death penalty are kept pending in courts for a long time, then capital punishment would lose its significance. Kazmi, however, maintained, "I am against capital punishment because if we as human beings cannot give life to anyone then we do not have the right to take life also." "Look at Valmiki who reformed himself from a dacoit to a saint...punishment should be reformative and every convict should be givena chance to reform himself," Kazmi opined. The prison conditions are such that life imprisonment would be the harshest for any convict. In death penalty, a convict does not suffer after he is hanged but in case of lifer, he dies every day in jail because of hardship, he said. The perpetrators of terror attacks should be given stringent punishment,Kasab's lawyer said.
(Source: The Times of India, 18 May 2009)
(Source: The Times of India, 18 May 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)