Three years ago, Pakistani terrorist Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab and his accomplices created mayhem in Mumbai and killed 166 innocent people. The lone captured terrorist of the 26/11 attack has since been enjoying Indian ‘hospitality’ at Mumbai’s Arthur Road jail with the government spending Rs16 crore on the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant.
The Supreme Court will hear some ‘interesting’ arguments in favour of Kasab who was awarded the death penalty on five counts. Earlier this year, Kasab filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the death sentence awarded to him.
Noted lawyer Raju Ramachandran who will defend Kasab in the hearing scheduled to begin on January 29, 2012, refused to comment. “I am merely responding to the call of professional duty,” he said. Ramachandran’s junior Gaurav Aggarwal has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court (a copy of which is with DNA) in defence of Kasab.
On of the major arguments that will be made to defend Kasab is that contrary to the charge, he did not wage war against India. The argument is that unlike Parliament and the Red Fort, the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) in Mumbai where Kasab and his accomplice Abu Ismail fired indiscriminately at innocents is not the symbol of authority of the Republic of India.
CST is owned by the railway ministry — an instrument of the Union government. Attacking a railway station or a hospital (Cama) does not amount to waging war against the government of India is the defence.
DNA has learnt that Ramachandran will also question the test identification parade (TIP) by the investigating agencies of a blood-soaked Kasab following the attack. Kasab’s photographs and visuals were flashed across the print and electronic media after the 26/11 attack and he was painted as the culprit. The argument of Kasab’s legal team is that no legally valid TIP was done to check the veracity of allegations that it was indeed Kasab and his accomplices who had attacked places such as CST and Cama hospital.
Aggarwal’s appeal also seeks to point out that a ‘foreigner’ like Kasab cannot be expected to know the law of the country. Sources said Kasab was forced to make a confession before a magistrate without being offered the services of a lawyer. Though he retracted his statement during the trial, he was awarded the death penalty for waging war against India.
“The courts, however, ignored the fact that Kasab did not know the gravity of the confession he made to the magistrate,” a source said. “Therefore, the conviction based on Kasab’s questionable confession is illegal by law and by retracting his statement, Kasab vitiated the trial.”
Ramchandran is expected to take six days to complete his arguments while former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium could take a bit longer to prove that Kasab is not innocent. A two-judge bench of justices Aftab Alam and CK Prasad will hear Kasab’s appeal from January 29, 2012.
“If everything goes according to the case calendar, the Supreme Court could pronounce its verdict around the beginning of April,” a source said.
Kasab who is facing the death penalty on five counts has used all possible ploys to extract the most out of the liberal humanitarian aspects of the Indian Constitution and the legal system. He had earlier said he was a teenager and a foreign national who was tutored by a terror group and did not deserve the death penalty awarded by a foreign court.
He also wrote to the chief justice of India from the Arthur Road jail, seeking suspension of the capital sentence. In his letter, Kasab also expressed his inability to hire a lawyer to defend him. Taking note of the letter, the Supreme Court stayed Kasab’s execution and urged Ramachandran to prepare Kasab’s defence and file a proper special leave petition.
Ramachandran’s legal acumen is well known as he was a lawyer for the Volcker Commission inquiry panel that probed into allegations against former Supreme Court judge V Ramasami.
He also assisted the Supreme Court in the 2002 Gujarat riots cases and his recent report suggested prima facie evidence against Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in the murder case of Congress MP Ehsan Jaffri.
Source: Published: Monday, Nov 28, 2011, 9:00 IST
By Rakesh Bhatnagar | Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_exclusive-saving-killer-ajmal-kasab_1618255
accessed on 29th November 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Hawking Poison Desperate US prisons look for lethal drugs from India. Should we market death?
Sodium Thiopental
* What Short-acting barbiturate used as an anaesthetic. First of a standard three-drug protocol used in the United States to execute prisoners sentenced to death. Lethal dose (up to 5 grams) used to render prisoner unconscious, after which a paralytic and a toxic agent injected in sequence.
* Why Shortage of sodium thiopental in the US after sole domestic supplier, shut production in 2009, citing lack of raw materials. Demand low, outside of prisons in the US.
* How Initially, US prisons able to import it from Britain, but ban imposed by Britain, other European countries, after human rights groups protest. Mainstream drug companies reluctant to supply. Therefore, some prisons are turning to India.
***
It all started with a mundane phonecall in August, received by the Noida office of a Swiss-Indian drug company called Naari. The caller, a Calcutta-based Indian businessman called Chris Harris, wanted samples of a drug called sodium thiopental to dispatch, he explained, to Zambia for registration by the country’s drug authorities. It was a perfectly plausible request. The drug, though largely replaced by better anaesthetics in the West, is still used widely in the developing world. Accordingly, Naari dipped into its stocks and sent vials containing 485 grams of sodium thiopental to Harris in Calcutta in end-September; and waited for the large order that he said would follow.
A few weeks later, the firm’s Indian officials were stunned when an investigator with the London-based charity, Reprieve, which campaigns against the death penalty, called to tell them where those samples had really gone. Not to Zambia, but the American state of Nebraska; not for medicinal use, but to execute convicts by the chosen American method, lethal injection (see infographic).
Surprise turned to outrage when they learnt from the investigator, Maya Foa, that Naari had even been named as the supplier of the drug in a press release issued by Nebraska’s Department of Correctional Services (NCDs) on November 3. “We’re not in the business of helping to execute people, we were lied to and cheated,” says a spokesman for the company. The prison paid $5,411 for the chemicals—over 15 times what Naari would have ordinarily charged Harris for them. But Harris hadn’t paid at all. By selling Naari’s free samples to Nebraska’s execution machinery, apparently desperate for drugs, the small-time middleman had made—yes—a killing.
Foa, who’s working with Naari on strategies to prevent the exported drugs being used in executions, says the episode, though shocking, is typical. “It is often the case that manufacturers and suppliers are drawn into this trade unwittingly and have no idea their drugs are going to execution chambers,” she says. That knowledge belongs to perfidious middlemen, key players in a macabre niche of global commerce ominously seeking to widen its footprint in India. High US standards for foreign drugs drop dramatically when it involves import of drugs for lethal injections.
Harris, for instance, has been in assiduous contact with American prison departments, as shown by documents obtained by campaigners through Freedom of Information Act applications. It was he who brokered transactions in which Nebraska and South Dakota bought sodium thiopental in December 2010 and February 2011 respectively from Kayem Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, which turned out to be a two-room outfit in a Mumbai suburb. (Eventually, US enforcement officials did not permit the use of those drugs, due to procedural violations in the import process.) Dipak Shangvi of Ganpati Exim, a Calcutta wholesaler and exporter of drugs, says he was in discussions with Harris a few months ago over supplying the drug to the US, but pulled out quickly when he realised—thanks to a Google search that led him to ask Harris some probing questions—that it was going to a prison. “We are Jains,” he said, by way of explanation.
The intriguing larger question is: why are state institutions in the mighty United States shopping at the murky end of the pharma trade? The answer is, they don’t have much choice. Drug companies, increasingly reluctant to be branded as suppliers of drugs for lethal injections, are distancing themselves from US prisons, which is no small achievement for hyperactive anti-capital punishment groups. When Hospira, the sole producer of sodium thiopental within the US, shut shop in 2009, for a variety of reasons, some US prisons initially managed to source the drug from Britain. (By now, it will not surprise readers to know it came from a company that operated out of the back of a driving school.) However, campaigners put an end to that trade by persuading several European governments to ban it. Many US prisons switched to a single drug called pentobarbital, commonly used to put down dogs, but campaigners won that round, too. In July this year, a Danish company, Lundbeck, the only licensed maker of the drug in the US, bowed to pressure (especially when it took the form of a major investor, a Danish pension fund, selling off a hefty € 5.4 million worth of its shares) and agreed to deny the drug to American execution chambers.
Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279072
accessed on 29th Nov 2011
* What Short-acting barbiturate used as an anaesthetic. First of a standard three-drug protocol used in the United States to execute prisoners sentenced to death. Lethal dose (up to 5 grams) used to render prisoner unconscious, after which a paralytic and a toxic agent injected in sequence.
* Why Shortage of sodium thiopental in the US after sole domestic supplier, shut production in 2009, citing lack of raw materials. Demand low, outside of prisons in the US.
* How Initially, US prisons able to import it from Britain, but ban imposed by Britain, other European countries, after human rights groups protest. Mainstream drug companies reluctant to supply. Therefore, some prisons are turning to India.
***
It all started with a mundane phonecall in August, received by the Noida office of a Swiss-Indian drug company called Naari. The caller, a Calcutta-based Indian businessman called Chris Harris, wanted samples of a drug called sodium thiopental to dispatch, he explained, to Zambia for registration by the country’s drug authorities. It was a perfectly plausible request. The drug, though largely replaced by better anaesthetics in the West, is still used widely in the developing world. Accordingly, Naari dipped into its stocks and sent vials containing 485 grams of sodium thiopental to Harris in Calcutta in end-September; and waited for the large order that he said would follow.
A few weeks later, the firm’s Indian officials were stunned when an investigator with the London-based charity, Reprieve, which campaigns against the death penalty, called to tell them where those samples had really gone. Not to Zambia, but the American state of Nebraska; not for medicinal use, but to execute convicts by the chosen American method, lethal injection (see infographic).
Surprise turned to outrage when they learnt from the investigator, Maya Foa, that Naari had even been named as the supplier of the drug in a press release issued by Nebraska’s Department of Correctional Services (NCDs) on November 3. “We’re not in the business of helping to execute people, we were lied to and cheated,” says a spokesman for the company. The prison paid $5,411 for the chemicals—over 15 times what Naari would have ordinarily charged Harris for them. But Harris hadn’t paid at all. By selling Naari’s free samples to Nebraska’s execution machinery, apparently desperate for drugs, the small-time middleman had made—yes—a killing.
Foa, who’s working with Naari on strategies to prevent the exported drugs being used in executions, says the episode, though shocking, is typical. “It is often the case that manufacturers and suppliers are drawn into this trade unwittingly and have no idea their drugs are going to execution chambers,” she says. That knowledge belongs to perfidious middlemen, key players in a macabre niche of global commerce ominously seeking to widen its footprint in India. High US standards for foreign drugs drop dramatically when it involves import of drugs for lethal injections.
Harris, for instance, has been in assiduous contact with American prison departments, as shown by documents obtained by campaigners through Freedom of Information Act applications. It was he who brokered transactions in which Nebraska and South Dakota bought sodium thiopental in December 2010 and February 2011 respectively from Kayem Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, which turned out to be a two-room outfit in a Mumbai suburb. (Eventually, US enforcement officials did not permit the use of those drugs, due to procedural violations in the import process.) Dipak Shangvi of Ganpati Exim, a Calcutta wholesaler and exporter of drugs, says he was in discussions with Harris a few months ago over supplying the drug to the US, but pulled out quickly when he realised—thanks to a Google search that led him to ask Harris some probing questions—that it was going to a prison. “We are Jains,” he said, by way of explanation.
The intriguing larger question is: why are state institutions in the mighty United States shopping at the murky end of the pharma trade? The answer is, they don’t have much choice. Drug companies, increasingly reluctant to be branded as suppliers of drugs for lethal injections, are distancing themselves from US prisons, which is no small achievement for hyperactive anti-capital punishment groups. When Hospira, the sole producer of sodium thiopental within the US, shut shop in 2009, for a variety of reasons, some US prisons initially managed to source the drug from Britain. (By now, it will not surprise readers to know it came from a company that operated out of the back of a driving school.) However, campaigners put an end to that trade by persuading several European governments to ban it. Many US prisons switched to a single drug called pentobarbital, commonly used to put down dogs, but campaigners won that round, too. In July this year, a Danish company, Lundbeck, the only licensed maker of the drug in the US, bowed to pressure (especially when it took the form of a major investor, a Danish pension fund, selling off a hefty € 5.4 million worth of its shares) and agreed to deny the drug to American execution chambers.
Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279072
accessed on 29th Nov 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Minor's death penalty set aside
Holding that he was a minor at the time of commission of offence, the Madurai bench of the Madras high court on Friday set aside the death sentence imposed on a convict for raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl. The girl was murdered in 2006 at Jaihindpuram, Madurai.
Allowing the appeal of the convict, the bench comprising Justice M Jaichandren and Justice S Nagamuthu pronounced the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under all charges as set aside.
The case has been remitted back to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, for disposal in accordance with provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, has been directed to dispose of the case within four months.
V Selvam of Anupanadi was arrested for rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl at her residence in Jaihindpuram. According to the police, he was working with a garland seller at Jaihindpuram. When his boss went away, the boy went to the house of the garland seller, beat up the girl, raped and murdered her. Later, he hid her body in a cardboard box meant for TV sets and fled, on October 26.
When the police went after him, he surrendered before the village administrative officer and confessed to have committed the crime. The accused was then handed over to the police.
Selvam is the sole accused in the case. He stood charged for offences under sections 450, 376(2)(f), 377, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment on August 1, 2008, the trial court convicted him under sections 450, 376(2)(f), 377, 302 and 201 of the IPC.
For offence under section 302 of the IPC, he has been given the death sentence subject to confirmation by the high court. He also got awards ranging from imprisonment of 10 years to a life sentence under the other provisions. In 2008, Selvam challenged the convictions before the Madurai bench.
It was contended that as on the date of alleged commission of offence, the accused was a juvenile in conflict with law since his date of birth was 01.06.1989. Therefore, it was submitted that he was entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and so the entire trial before the lower court, which treated the appellant as an adult, stood vitiated.
On considering the said ground and after hearing both sides, a division bench directed the trial court to hold an appropriate inquiry in respect of the age of the accused as on the date of occurrence of offence and submit a report.
Accordingly, the additional sessions judge (mahila court), Madurai, submitted a report on February 22, 2010, reporting that the accused was not a juvenile in conflict with law as he was about 21 years of age at the time of commission of offence.
Again, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the inquiry was not conducted by the sessions judge in accordance with law. It was submitted that even the school certificate of the accused showing his date of birth was not considered, and instead, the opinion of the doctor alone was taken into account.
After hearing both sides, the division bench, by order on July 29, 2010, scrapped the report of the sessions judge and remitted the matter back to the additional sessions judge, Madurai, with a direction to conduct an inquiry in respect of the age of the accused as on date of commission of offence, and to submit a fresh report within four weeks.
Having considered all the above material, the sessions judge concluded that as on the date of commission of offence, i.e. October 22, 2006, the accused was aged 17 years, four months and 21 days, and thus he was only a juvenile.
In view of the specific provisions contained in the act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in previous judgments, the Bench said, "We have no other option but to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under all charges and to remit the matter back to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, with a direction to the board to hold a necessary inquiry as per provisions of the act and dispose of the case in accordance with law, as the entire trial stands vitiated."
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-26/madurai/30444689_1_madurai-bench-mahila-court-convict
accessed on 28th Nov 2011
Allowing the appeal of the convict, the bench comprising Justice M Jaichandren and Justice S Nagamuthu pronounced the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under all charges as set aside.
The case has been remitted back to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, for disposal in accordance with provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, has been directed to dispose of the case within four months.
V Selvam of Anupanadi was arrested for rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl at her residence in Jaihindpuram. According to the police, he was working with a garland seller at Jaihindpuram. When his boss went away, the boy went to the house of the garland seller, beat up the girl, raped and murdered her. Later, he hid her body in a cardboard box meant for TV sets and fled, on October 26.
When the police went after him, he surrendered before the village administrative officer and confessed to have committed the crime. The accused was then handed over to the police.
Selvam is the sole accused in the case. He stood charged for offences under sections 450, 376(2)(f), 377, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment on August 1, 2008, the trial court convicted him under sections 450, 376(2)(f), 377, 302 and 201 of the IPC.
For offence under section 302 of the IPC, he has been given the death sentence subject to confirmation by the high court. He also got awards ranging from imprisonment of 10 years to a life sentence under the other provisions. In 2008, Selvam challenged the convictions before the Madurai bench.
It was contended that as on the date of alleged commission of offence, the accused was a juvenile in conflict with law since his date of birth was 01.06.1989. Therefore, it was submitted that he was entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and so the entire trial before the lower court, which treated the appellant as an adult, stood vitiated.
On considering the said ground and after hearing both sides, a division bench directed the trial court to hold an appropriate inquiry in respect of the age of the accused as on the date of occurrence of offence and submit a report.
Accordingly, the additional sessions judge (mahila court), Madurai, submitted a report on February 22, 2010, reporting that the accused was not a juvenile in conflict with law as he was about 21 years of age at the time of commission of offence.
Again, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the inquiry was not conducted by the sessions judge in accordance with law. It was submitted that even the school certificate of the accused showing his date of birth was not considered, and instead, the opinion of the doctor alone was taken into account.
After hearing both sides, the division bench, by order on July 29, 2010, scrapped the report of the sessions judge and remitted the matter back to the additional sessions judge, Madurai, with a direction to conduct an inquiry in respect of the age of the accused as on date of commission of offence, and to submit a fresh report within four weeks.
Having considered all the above material, the sessions judge concluded that as on the date of commission of offence, i.e. October 22, 2006, the accused was aged 17 years, four months and 21 days, and thus he was only a juvenile.
In view of the specific provisions contained in the act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in previous judgments, the Bench said, "We have no other option but to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under all charges and to remit the matter back to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, with a direction to the board to hold a necessary inquiry as per provisions of the act and dispose of the case in accordance with law, as the entire trial stands vitiated."
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-26/madurai/30444689_1_madurai-bench-mahila-court-convict
accessed on 28th Nov 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
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)
Friday, November 18, 2011
India 'honour killers' face death for 1991 murders
BBC News Asia:
16 November 2011 Last updated at 19:31 GMT
A judge in India has sentenced eight men to death and 20 others to life imprisonment for three so-called honour killings that took place in 1991.The men were found guilty of murdering a Dalit boy and a girl from a higher caste who had eloped together, as well as the boy's cousin. All three were set alight and hanged, the court in Uttar Pradesh state heard.
A BBC correspondent says the sentences are some of the most severe ever recorded in a such a case. Earlier this year India's Supreme Court ordered states to stamp out "honour killings, saying people found guilty of such crimes should face execution. Convictions in such cases often carry life sentences.
The death penalty is awarded only very rarely in India - when executions are authorised they can be delayed for years on appeal.
Genitals burned Age-old notions of tradition and family honour are still deeply entrenched in many parts of Indian society. According to one recent study, hundreds of people are killed each year for falling in love or marrying outside their caste or against their families' wishes. Often "honour" crimes are endorsed, or even encouraged, by village-based caste councils or panchayats.
The court in Mathura in Uttar Pradesh heard how Vijander, a Dalit boy, had eloped with his girlfriend, Roshni. She was a member of the higher-caste Jaat community and from the same village, Mehrana, near the border with Haryana state. The couple returned to Mehrana a few days later thinking anger would have subsided, the BBC's Ram Dutt Tripathi in Lucknow reports.
But village elders decreed they be killed, along with Vijander's cousin Ram Kishan, who had helped them elope. The killings took place on 22 March 1991 and were brutal - the court heard how the genitals of the deceased were burned before they were hanged from a tree.
The case came to light because the parents of the boys lodged a case against the council for ordering the killings, our correspondent says.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15759470
accessed on 18th Nov 2011
16 November 2011 Last updated at 19:31 GMT
A judge in India has sentenced eight men to death and 20 others to life imprisonment for three so-called honour killings that took place in 1991.The men were found guilty of murdering a Dalit boy and a girl from a higher caste who had eloped together, as well as the boy's cousin. All three were set alight and hanged, the court in Uttar Pradesh state heard.
A BBC correspondent says the sentences are some of the most severe ever recorded in a such a case. Earlier this year India's Supreme Court ordered states to stamp out "honour killings, saying people found guilty of such crimes should face execution. Convictions in such cases often carry life sentences.
The death penalty is awarded only very rarely in India - when executions are authorised they can be delayed for years on appeal.
Genitals burned Age-old notions of tradition and family honour are still deeply entrenched in many parts of Indian society. According to one recent study, hundreds of people are killed each year for falling in love or marrying outside their caste or against their families' wishes. Often "honour" crimes are endorsed, or even encouraged, by village-based caste councils or panchayats.
The court in Mathura in Uttar Pradesh heard how Vijander, a Dalit boy, had eloped with his girlfriend, Roshni. She was a member of the higher-caste Jaat community and from the same village, Mehrana, near the border with Haryana state. The couple returned to Mehrana a few days later thinking anger would have subsided, the BBC's Ram Dutt Tripathi in Lucknow reports.
But village elders decreed they be killed, along with Vijander's cousin Ram Kishan, who had helped them elope. The killings took place on 22 March 1991 and were brutal - the court heard how the genitals of the deceased were burned before they were hanged from a tree.
The case came to light because the parents of the boys lodged a case against the council for ordering the killings, our correspondent says.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15759470
accessed on 18th Nov 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Death penalty 'barbaric, anti-life': SC judge
PTI | Nov 15, 2011, 07.32PM IST
NEW DELHI: Justice AK Ganguly of the Supreme court has termed the award of death sentence as "barbaric, anti-life, undemocratic and irresponsible" which is "legal" in the prevailing judicial system.
Describing this as his "personal view", Justice Ganguly said the Constitutional guarantee of right to life cannot be subjected to "vague premises".
The doctrine of the crime falling in the'rarest of rare' category in awarding the death penalty was a "grey" area as its interpretation depended on individual judges, he said, adding the "sentencing structures" should be in consonance with the goals set by the Constitution.
The remarks were made by Justice Ganguly yesterday at a two-day seminar on 'Abolition of Death Penalty in India'. The seminar was organized by the Jindal Global Law School at Sonepat in Haryana.
The sitting judge of the apex court said sending a convict to the gallows, is legal but "barbaric, anti-life, undemocratic and irresponsible"..
The guilt of an accused should be proved beyond "lingering" doubt in cases warranting the award of capital punishment, which has so far not yet been evolved.
He cautioned that before giving death penalty, a judge must be "extremely careful" and weigh "mitigating and aggravating circumstances".
The Judge said the state must adduce evidence that the accused cannot be reformed.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Death-penalty-barbaric-anti-life-SC-judge/articleshow/10742277.cms
accessed on 15th Nov 2011
NEW DELHI: Justice AK Ganguly of the Supreme court has termed the award of death sentence as "barbaric, anti-life, undemocratic and irresponsible" which is "legal" in the prevailing judicial system.
Describing this as his "personal view", Justice Ganguly said the Constitutional guarantee of right to life cannot be subjected to "vague premises".
The doctrine of the crime falling in the'rarest of rare' category in awarding the death penalty was a "grey" area as its interpretation depended on individual judges, he said, adding the "sentencing structures" should be in consonance with the goals set by the Constitution.
The remarks were made by Justice Ganguly yesterday at a two-day seminar on 'Abolition of Death Penalty in India'. The seminar was organized by the Jindal Global Law School at Sonepat in Haryana.
The sitting judge of the apex court said sending a convict to the gallows, is legal but "barbaric, anti-life, undemocratic and irresponsible"..
The guilt of an accused should be proved beyond "lingering" doubt in cases warranting the award of capital punishment, which has so far not yet been evolved.
He cautioned that before giving death penalty, a judge must be "extremely careful" and weigh "mitigating and aggravating circumstances".
The Judge said the state must adduce evidence that the accused cannot be reformed.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Death-penalty-barbaric-anti-life-SC-judge/articleshow/10742277.cms
accessed on 15th Nov 2011
Lifting of death penalty sought
KOCHI, November 15, 2011
By Special Correspondent:
The Committee Against Death Penalty has urged the Union and State governments to order a moratorium on death penalty. To press its demand for a moratorium, the committee will hold a ‘people's convention' in Thiruvananthapuram on November 28.
Prominent people from various fields will speak at the convention, which would be opened by writer Paul Zachariah, K. Rajmohan, one of the organisers of the campaign, said. He pointed out that a large number of countries had done away with death penalty. He pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution seeking to revoke the death penalty of those sentenced in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination.
Resolution
There was a move in the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly to pass a resolution supporting the revocation of the death penalty given to Afzal Guru, who was sentenced in the Parliament House attack case. Mr. Rajmohan also recalled that nearly 70 years back, the then Travancore kingdom had abolished the death penalty.
Demand
Several human rights activists, criminologists and jurists the world over have been pressing for the abolition of death penalty. It was high time, he said, India dropped death penalty from its penal code. As a first step, the government should order a moratorium on death penalty and the Thiruvananthapuram convention would launch a strong campaign for this, Mr. Rajmohan said.
Committee urges governments to declare moratorium
To hold a people's convention in State capital
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2628697.ece
accessed on 15th Nov 2011
By Special Correspondent:
The Committee Against Death Penalty has urged the Union and State governments to order a moratorium on death penalty. To press its demand for a moratorium, the committee will hold a ‘people's convention' in Thiruvananthapuram on November 28.
Prominent people from various fields will speak at the convention, which would be opened by writer Paul Zachariah, K. Rajmohan, one of the organisers of the campaign, said. He pointed out that a large number of countries had done away with death penalty. He pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution seeking to revoke the death penalty of those sentenced in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination.
Resolution
There was a move in the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly to pass a resolution supporting the revocation of the death penalty given to Afzal Guru, who was sentenced in the Parliament House attack case. Mr. Rajmohan also recalled that nearly 70 years back, the then Travancore kingdom had abolished the death penalty.
Demand
Several human rights activists, criminologists and jurists the world over have been pressing for the abolition of death penalty. It was high time, he said, India dropped death penalty from its penal code. As a first step, the government should order a moratorium on death penalty and the Thiruvananthapuram convention would launch a strong campaign for this, Mr. Rajmohan said.
Committee urges governments to declare moratorium
To hold a people's convention in State capital
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2628697.ece
accessed on 15th Nov 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Death penalty awarded in female infanticide case
10 Nov 2011, 08:43 - Chandigarh , Lalit Kumar
A Sangrur Court Wednesday ordered one Mukesh Kumar to be hanged to death in a case of murder of his four-day-old daughter. This award of capital punishment is perhaps the first-of-its-kind in a case of female infanticide.
Sangrur District and Sessions Judge MS Chauhan in his order noted "Five million girls were eliminated between 1986 and 2001 because of foetal sex determination done by unethical medical professionals."
In this case the victim was a new-born girl child. The judge noted that, "the accused, it seems, had scripted her obituary much before she was born. This is the story of an unnamed infant; probably this is the first decision which cannot even refer to the victim by her name. She was eliminated before she could have one!.. A smile was lost forever. The moral regression of the people of India has not been crippled by the penal laws. The policy of persuasion has failed".
The prosecution had argued that the accused intentionally caused the death of his daughter three days after her birth. The judge stated that the only punishment that can be awarded to the convict is the extreme penalty of death.
Source: http://www.lawetalnews.com/post.php?id=144
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
A Sangrur Court Wednesday ordered one Mukesh Kumar to be hanged to death in a case of murder of his four-day-old daughter. This award of capital punishment is perhaps the first-of-its-kind in a case of female infanticide.
Sangrur District and Sessions Judge MS Chauhan in his order noted "Five million girls were eliminated between 1986 and 2001 because of foetal sex determination done by unethical medical professionals."
In this case the victim was a new-born girl child. The judge noted that, "the accused, it seems, had scripted her obituary much before she was born. This is the story of an unnamed infant; probably this is the first decision which cannot even refer to the victim by her name. She was eliminated before she could have one!.. A smile was lost forever. The moral regression of the people of India has not been crippled by the penal laws. The policy of persuasion has failed".
The prosecution had argued that the accused intentionally caused the death of his daughter three days after her birth. The judge stated that the only punishment that can be awarded to the convict is the extreme penalty of death.
Source: http://www.lawetalnews.com/post.php?id=144
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Chavan plans death penalty plea for killers
Comment (Reena Mary George): How can the State already decide how they want the trial to go? Does it not depend on rule of law? Does it not depend on how the prosecution files their case? Does it not depend how well the defense lawyers argue their case? My heart goes out to the families of the victims and the ones who have committed this crime must be punished; but only according to the rule of law. There is no scope for "Eye for an eye" in the Indian Judiciary though it seems to work that way these days.
Sunday, 06 November 2011 00:55 IST PNS | Mumbai
Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan on Saturday said his Government would root for death penalty to the killers of Keenan Santos (25) and Reuben Fernandes (27), who died while resisting eve-teasing of their girlfriends.
Earlier, veteran BJP leader LK Advani spoke to Keenan's father Valerian Santos over phone, expressed his shock over the incident and conveyed condolences to the bereaved family members.
Advani, who was in the city as part of the ongoing Jan Chetna Yatra, took time out to telephone Santos. He assured Santos that he would take up the matter with the Maharashtra CM and seek stringent punishment to the accused in the incident.
Meanwhile, the four accused in the murder case - Jitendra Rane (25), Satish Dulhaj (35), Sunil Bodh (20) and Deepak Tival (18) — have been remanded to judicial custody by a city court till November 18.
Chavan said, "The incident is absolutely reprehensible. We have taken very strict action. All the four persons involved in the incident have been arrested. We have requested for fast track trial of the four accused. We will demand death penalty for the accused in the heinous crime." He conveyed his condolences to the bereaved families.
Keenan and Reuben were badly assaulted by a group of eve-teasers when they had gone to enjoy the India-England ODI at a restaurant in Andheri on October 20.
Source: http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/18319-chavan-plans-death-penalty-plea-for-killers.html
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Sunday, 06 November 2011 00:55 IST PNS | Mumbai
Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan on Saturday said his Government would root for death penalty to the killers of Keenan Santos (25) and Reuben Fernandes (27), who died while resisting eve-teasing of their girlfriends.
Earlier, veteran BJP leader LK Advani spoke to Keenan's father Valerian Santos over phone, expressed his shock over the incident and conveyed condolences to the bereaved family members.
Advani, who was in the city as part of the ongoing Jan Chetna Yatra, took time out to telephone Santos. He assured Santos that he would take up the matter with the Maharashtra CM and seek stringent punishment to the accused in the incident.
Meanwhile, the four accused in the murder case - Jitendra Rane (25), Satish Dulhaj (35), Sunil Bodh (20) and Deepak Tival (18) — have been remanded to judicial custody by a city court till November 18.
Chavan said, "The incident is absolutely reprehensible. We have taken very strict action. All the four persons involved in the incident have been arrested. We have requested for fast track trial of the four accused. We will demand death penalty for the accused in the heinous crime." He conveyed his condolences to the bereaved families.
Keenan and Reuben were badly assaulted by a group of eve-teasers when they had gone to enjoy the India-England ODI at a restaurant in Andheri on October 20.
Source: http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/18319-chavan-plans-death-penalty-plea-for-killers.html
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Hindu leader suggests death penalty for conversion
A prominent Hindu nationalist leader has called for the beheading of anyone who attempts to convert Hindus to another religion.
Praveen Togadia, suggested the death penalty for religious conversions at a Hind conference, adding that the execution should be by decapitation. Father Cedric Prakash, the Jesuit director of a human-rights center, observed that such intolerance is not unusual in India today. “What Togadia has said is nothing new,” he told the AsiaNews service. He observed, however, that the Hindu zealot’s suggestion is thoroughly at odds with India’s traditional commitment to inter-religious harmony.
Source: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12309
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Praveen Togadia, suggested the death penalty for religious conversions at a Hind conference, adding that the execution should be by decapitation. Father Cedric Prakash, the Jesuit director of a human-rights center, observed that such intolerance is not unusual in India today. “What Togadia has said is nothing new,” he told the AsiaNews service. He observed, however, that the Hindu zealot’s suggestion is thoroughly at odds with India’s traditional commitment to inter-religious harmony.
Source: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12309
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Binayak backs jailed artiste
The telegraph, Calcutta, India
Ranchi, Nov. 12: Human rights activist Binayak Sen today came out in open support of Jeetan Marandi who has been found guilty for the 2007 Chikari massacre, terming the death sentence to the tribal artiste “unlawful”.
Addressing a national convention organised by Jan Kalakar Jeetan Marandi Manch — a local body of artistes — at SDC Auditorium, Sen said, “An artiste and tribal rights activist, Jeetan was known to utilise the power of music to speak against government atrocities on the common man, especially tribals.”
“Therefore, it doesn’t surprise me that he has been wrongfully convicted and is now set to be hanged. However, we will fight till his last breath to reverse the court’s decision,” he added.
On June 23, a sessions court judge in Giridih had served death sentence to Jeetan and his associates, Manoj Rajwar, Chatrapati Mandal and Anil Ram, for firing on a crowd watching a football match and killing 20 people, including Babulal Marandi’s son Anup, in Chilkari in 2007.
As many as 200 activists assembled for the daylong convention in Ranchi.
“Artistes world over have used their medium of music, song, painting, etc. to portray the wrongs of society. Jeetan was fighting against displacement, corporate and political loot among other ills. It is ironic of the state government that in the land of Birsa Munda, it has been staying mum on his case,” added Sen.
Actor-director R. Narayana Murty said the film fraternity and cultural activists of Hyderabad were united to fight for Jeetan. “We will be soon come to Ranchi in large numbers from the south. We have decided to launch an indefinite strike here demanding justice for Jeetan and his family,” he said.
The activists also demanded the high court’s intervention to bail out Jeetan. The apex court should call a fair trial to book the real culprits behind the Chilkari massacre, they added.
Sen also said that the basis on which the case was made against Jeetan was an “open secret”. He added: “The police kept on changing its version from time to time and ended up presenting false witnesses. None of the witnesses belonged to any of the victims’ families till date. It is a clear indication how the authorities have deliberately formed false charges against the cultural activists.”
Source: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111113/jsp/jharkhand/story_14741944.jsp
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Ranchi, Nov. 12: Human rights activist Binayak Sen today came out in open support of Jeetan Marandi who has been found guilty for the 2007 Chikari massacre, terming the death sentence to the tribal artiste “unlawful”.
Addressing a national convention organised by Jan Kalakar Jeetan Marandi Manch — a local body of artistes — at SDC Auditorium, Sen said, “An artiste and tribal rights activist, Jeetan was known to utilise the power of music to speak against government atrocities on the common man, especially tribals.”
“Therefore, it doesn’t surprise me that he has been wrongfully convicted and is now set to be hanged. However, we will fight till his last breath to reverse the court’s decision,” he added.
On June 23, a sessions court judge in Giridih had served death sentence to Jeetan and his associates, Manoj Rajwar, Chatrapati Mandal and Anil Ram, for firing on a crowd watching a football match and killing 20 people, including Babulal Marandi’s son Anup, in Chilkari in 2007.
As many as 200 activists assembled for the daylong convention in Ranchi.
“Artistes world over have used their medium of music, song, painting, etc. to portray the wrongs of society. Jeetan was fighting against displacement, corporate and political loot among other ills. It is ironic of the state government that in the land of Birsa Munda, it has been staying mum on his case,” added Sen.
Actor-director R. Narayana Murty said the film fraternity and cultural activists of Hyderabad were united to fight for Jeetan. “We will be soon come to Ranchi in large numbers from the south. We have decided to launch an indefinite strike here demanding justice for Jeetan and his family,” he said.
The activists also demanded the high court’s intervention to bail out Jeetan. The apex court should call a fair trial to book the real culprits behind the Chilkari massacre, they added.
Sen also said that the basis on which the case was made against Jeetan was an “open secret”. He added: “The police kept on changing its version from time to time and ended up presenting false witnesses. None of the witnesses belonged to any of the victims’ families till date. It is a clear indication how the authorities have deliberately formed false charges against the cultural activists.”
Source: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111113/jsp/jharkhand/story_14741944.jsp
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Arguments in 2003 twin blast case end, verdict on Dec 12
Press Trust Of India
Mumbai, November 12, 2011
Arguments on confirmation of death sentence awarded to three convicts in the 2003 Mumbai twin bomb blast case concluded on Saturday before the Bombay high court.
Division bench of justices AM Khanvilkar and PD Kode would deliver the verdict on December 12, said advocate Sushan(t) Kunjuraman, defence lawyer. The bench held a special hearing today to hear the final arguments.
Ashrat Ansari (32), Hanif Sayed Anees (46) and his wife Fehmida Sayed (43) were held guilty on charges of planting powerful bombs in two taxis which exploded at Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar respectively on August 25, 2003, killing 52 persons.
The conspiracy had been hatched by Hanif, Ashrat, Nasir (who was later killed in a police encounter) and some Pakistani nationals owing allegiance to LeT in Dubai, as per the prosecution case.
The trio, who belonged to LeT, have also been found guilty by a POTA court for a blast in a municipal bus in suburban Ghatkopar on July 28, 2003, in which two people were killed.
In the present case, the three were convicted under various Sections of IPC, POTA, Explosive Substances Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
According to police, LeT used a family (husband-wife) to carry out blasts for the first time in this case. The motive, investigators said, was to seek vengeance for the violence against the minority community during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat in 2002.
As the convicts were given death sentence by trial court, the matter was sent to the Bombay High Court for confirmation, as required under the law.
Mumbai, November 12, 2011
Arguments on confirmation of death sentence awarded to three convicts in the 2003 Mumbai twin bomb blast case concluded on Saturday before the Bombay high court.
Division bench of justices AM Khanvilkar and PD Kode would deliver the verdict on December 12, said advocate Sushan(t) Kunjuraman, defence lawyer. The bench held a special hearing today to hear the final arguments.
Ashrat Ansari (32), Hanif Sayed Anees (46) and his wife Fehmida Sayed (43) were held guilty on charges of planting powerful bombs in two taxis which exploded at Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar respectively on August 25, 2003, killing 52 persons.
The conspiracy had been hatched by Hanif, Ashrat, Nasir (who was later killed in a police encounter) and some Pakistani nationals owing allegiance to LeT in Dubai, as per the prosecution case.
The trio, who belonged to LeT, have also been found guilty by a POTA court for a blast in a municipal bus in suburban Ghatkopar on July 28, 2003, in which two people were killed.
In the present case, the three were convicted under various Sections of IPC, POTA, Explosive Substances Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
According to police, LeT used a family (husband-wife) to carry out blasts for the first time in this case. The motive, investigators said, was to seek vengeance for the violence against the minority community during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat in 2002.
As the convicts were given death sentence by trial court, the matter was sent to the Bombay High Court for confirmation, as required under the law.
Man sentenced to death for killing daughter
Press Trust Of India
Sangrur, November 10, 2011
A court in Sangrur has awarded death sentence to a man for the murder of his new-born female baby. In a 97-page judgment, Sessions Judge of Sangrur M S Chauhan said "it is seen that the aggravating circumstances out-weigh the extenuating circumstances and as such the only punishment that
can be awarded to convict (Mukesh Kumar) is extreme penalty of death".
"The society needs to be insulated against persons of the ilk of the convict", the court said.
Kumar was also a awarded fine of Rs 10,000 in the judgment pronounced on Wednesday.
According to the prosecution, the accused, a street vendor, was married about five years ago to Manju Devi, both hailing from Uttar Pradesh's Aligarh district. The couple were residing at Ajit Nagar in Sangrur in a rented accommodation.
On January 18 this year, Manju gave birth to her second female child, that annoyed her husband. He started taunting her for giving birth a female child instead of a male child.
On January 21, when Manju returned home from some work, she found her husband gagging the baby. The accused went outside stating that the baby was sleeping.
When the mother saw the kid, she found her dead.
She narrated the incident to her neighbours and some relatives. A neighbour had informed the matter to police.
Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Punjab/Man-sentenced-to-death-for-killing-daughter/Article1-767413.aspx
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Sangrur, November 10, 2011
A court in Sangrur has awarded death sentence to a man for the murder of his new-born female baby. In a 97-page judgment, Sessions Judge of Sangrur M S Chauhan said "it is seen that the aggravating circumstances out-weigh the extenuating circumstances and as such the only punishment that
can be awarded to convict (Mukesh Kumar) is extreme penalty of death".
"The society needs to be insulated against persons of the ilk of the convict", the court said.
Kumar was also a awarded fine of Rs 10,000 in the judgment pronounced on Wednesday.
According to the prosecution, the accused, a street vendor, was married about five years ago to Manju Devi, both hailing from Uttar Pradesh's Aligarh district. The couple were residing at Ajit Nagar in Sangrur in a rented accommodation.
On January 18 this year, Manju gave birth to her second female child, that annoyed her husband. He started taunting her for giving birth a female child instead of a male child.
On January 21, when Manju returned home from some work, she found her husband gagging the baby. The accused went outside stating that the baby was sleeping.
When the mother saw the kid, she found her dead.
She narrated the incident to her neighbours and some relatives. A neighbour had informed the matter to police.
Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Punjab/Man-sentenced-to-death-for-killing-daughter/Article1-767413.aspx
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Soumya murder case: Convict gets death sentence
Thrissur: A Thrissur fast track court awarded capital punishment to the Soumya rape and murder case accused Govindachami. On Monday, it had found the accused Govindachami guilty.
Soumya was raped in a compartment of Kochi-Shornur passenger train and was pushed out of the moving train in February this year. Special Prosecutor A Suresan had pleaded for the maximum punishment of death.
According to the prosecution, Govindachami hailing from Virudhachalam in Tamil Nadu had assaulted 23-year-old Soumya in a deserted ladies' compartment on February 1 this year and pushed her out of the running train, immediately after it left the Vallathol Nagar station. He then carried her to a spot along the rail tracks and raped her 'cruelly and brutally'.
The accused had also injured her seriously resulting in her death on February 6.
Pressing for maximum punishment, the prosecution submitted that the accused was a 'habitual offender' and produced documentary evidence from the Tamil Nadu Crime Bureau of Police that he had been convicted in eight cases in Tamil Nadu from 2004 to 2008.
(With additional information from PTI)
Source : ibnlive.com
Soumya was raped in a compartment of Kochi-Shornur passenger train and was pushed out of the moving train in February this year. Special Prosecutor A Suresan had pleaded for the maximum punishment of death.
According to the prosecution, Govindachami hailing from Virudhachalam in Tamil Nadu had assaulted 23-year-old Soumya in a deserted ladies' compartment on February 1 this year and pushed her out of the running train, immediately after it left the Vallathol Nagar station. He then carried her to a spot along the rail tracks and raped her 'cruelly and brutally'.
The accused had also injured her seriously resulting in her death on February 6.
Pressing for maximum punishment, the prosecution submitted that the accused was a 'habitual offender' and produced documentary evidence from the Tamil Nadu Crime Bureau of Police that he had been convicted in eight cases in Tamil Nadu from 2004 to 2008.
(With additional information from PTI)
Source : ibnlive.com
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Rajiv killers join Bhullar to question rejection of mercy pleas
NEW DELHI: The three condemned prisoners in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case joined Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, sentenced to death in the 1993 Delhi bomb blast case, in arguing before the Supreme Court that pendency of their mercy pleas for over decade with the President was a good ground for commutation of their capital sentence to life term.
Though the three - Santhan, Arivu and Periarvalan - have moved the Madras High Court against the President's decision to reject their mercy pleas and have secured a stay on their execution, their counsel Ram Jethmalani on Wednesday requested the apex court to permit him to argue in Bhullar's pending case as its outcome would affect the HC decision.
A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked Bhullar's counsel K T S Tulsi and additional solicitor general Harin Raval whether they had any objection to Jethmalani arguing in this case and permitted the intervention when both the counsel said they did not have any problem.
The rejection of mercy pleas of Bhullar and the three in Rajiv assassination case has seen unprecedented political activity. While Tamil Nadu assembly passed a resolution requesting commutation of death penalty for the three condemned prisoners, there has been considerable support from the Sikh community for commutation of Bhullar's death penalty to life imprisonment.
Tulsi argued that the government was acting arbitrarily in deciding mercy pleas and cited recently obtained RTI information revealing that in some cases, the mercy pleas were decided the day it was made before the governors and in some cases in two months. "Here is a person who was made to wait on death row for 11 years and reduced to a mental wreck," Tulsi said.
Bhullar, an alleged Khalistan Liberation Force terrorist, was sentenced to death for masterminding the car bomb attack on then Youth Congress president Maninderjit Singh Bitta which left 9 persons dead just a stone's throw away from Parliament on September 10, 1993. The death sentence awarded to Bhullar attained judicial finality when on March 12, 2003, the apex court dismissed his curative petition. Bhullar had filed a mercy plea before the President on January 14, 2003.
Bhullar's wife Navneet Kaur has also filed a petition challenging rejection of mercy plea and said, "My husband has become mentally retarded on account of more than 5,700 days of delay in deciding the mercy petition which has inflicted such inhuman penalty and torture in his mind that he has become mentally retarded."
In response to Bhullar's petition, the Centre in its counter-affidavit said long pendency of mercy pleas of condemned prisoners, some for over a decade, was no ground for altering the decision taken on it by the President in exercise of her constitutional powers.
It said the Constitution prescribed no time frame for the President to decide mercy peas of condemned prisoners and that courts had no power to prescribe a deadline on this issue. "Pendency of the mercy petition cannot be said to be an act of cruelty or an act which adds to the suffering of the prisoner. In fact, it is the pendency of the mercy petition which has given a lease of life to the prisoner," the Centre had said.
Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rajiv-killers-join-Bhullar-to-question-rejection-of-mercy-pleas/articleshow/10674054.cms
Date : 10.11.2011
Though the three - Santhan, Arivu and Periarvalan - have moved the Madras High Court against the President's decision to reject their mercy pleas and have secured a stay on their execution, their counsel Ram Jethmalani on Wednesday requested the apex court to permit him to argue in Bhullar's pending case as its outcome would affect the HC decision.
A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked Bhullar's counsel K T S Tulsi and additional solicitor general Harin Raval whether they had any objection to Jethmalani arguing in this case and permitted the intervention when both the counsel said they did not have any problem.
The rejection of mercy pleas of Bhullar and the three in Rajiv assassination case has seen unprecedented political activity. While Tamil Nadu assembly passed a resolution requesting commutation of death penalty for the three condemned prisoners, there has been considerable support from the Sikh community for commutation of Bhullar's death penalty to life imprisonment.
Tulsi argued that the government was acting arbitrarily in deciding mercy pleas and cited recently obtained RTI information revealing that in some cases, the mercy pleas were decided the day it was made before the governors and in some cases in two months. "Here is a person who was made to wait on death row for 11 years and reduced to a mental wreck," Tulsi said.
Bhullar, an alleged Khalistan Liberation Force terrorist, was sentenced to death for masterminding the car bomb attack on then Youth Congress president Maninderjit Singh Bitta which left 9 persons dead just a stone's throw away from Parliament on September 10, 1993. The death sentence awarded to Bhullar attained judicial finality when on March 12, 2003, the apex court dismissed his curative petition. Bhullar had filed a mercy plea before the President on January 14, 2003.
Bhullar's wife Navneet Kaur has also filed a petition challenging rejection of mercy plea and said, "My husband has become mentally retarded on account of more than 5,700 days of delay in deciding the mercy petition which has inflicted such inhuman penalty and torture in his mind that he has become mentally retarded."
In response to Bhullar's petition, the Centre in its counter-affidavit said long pendency of mercy pleas of condemned prisoners, some for over a decade, was no ground for altering the decision taken on it by the President in exercise of her constitutional powers.
It said the Constitution prescribed no time frame for the President to decide mercy peas of condemned prisoners and that courts had no power to prescribe a deadline on this issue. "Pendency of the mercy petition cannot be said to be an act of cruelty or an act which adds to the suffering of the prisoner. In fact, it is the pendency of the mercy petition which has given a lease of life to the prisoner," the Centre had said.
Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rajiv-killers-join-Bhullar-to-question-rejection-of-mercy-pleas/articleshow/10674054.cms
Date : 10.11.2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
No time cap for mercy petitions, says Centre
CHENNAI: The power of the President of India to decide on mercy petitions under Article 72 of the Constitution is discretionary and cannot be taken away by any statutory provision and cannot be altered, modified or interfered with in any manner by any statutory provision or authority, the Union Home Secretary (Judicial) said on Friday in his common counter affidavits filed in response to the three writ petitions from Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan, convicted of killing former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi.
Nullifying the trio’s main contention that there was inordinate delay of over 11 years in disposing of their mercy petitions, the counter said the exercise of the power under this Article was not curtailed by any limitation as to the time frame within which such power conferred might be exercised. It was a special power overriding all other laws, rules and regulations in force. No time frame could be stipulated or set up for the President in this regard. Delay by itself did not entail the persons under sentence of death to demand for quashing of the sentence or converting it into life imprisonment. So, there could be no fixed period within which any mercy petition ought to be disposed of. The contention that if the mercy petition was not disposed of within a fixed period, it would render the sentence of death inexecutable, was untenable. The court, in exercise of power under Article 226 or Article 32, could not prescribe a time limit for disposal of the mercy petition. The citations of the Supreme Court judgments by the petitioners would not apply in this case, the counters said.
Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan had lived a normal life in prison like any other prisoner and were given opportunities to develop their skills. They were allowed to pursue their studies as well as other literary and cultural activities in the prison. So, it was fanciful to contend that they suffered mental torture, which caused violation of their fundamental rights, the counters said.
The behaviour of the trio in the prison, even if good, could not take away the reality that they had committed an extremely gruesome, heinous, cold-blooded and cruel crime. It was a well-planned and predetermined brutal murder with the active connivance and help of the petitioners by the terrorist organisation LTTE, which caused the death of, besides the former PM, 15 other innocent persons. The petitioners deserved the extreme penalty of death and nothing short of it. Giving deterrent punishment alone could prevent potential offenders from committing such crimes, the counters reiterated.
Just because some eminent personalities, social organisations, political parties, MPs, MLAs, former judges and jurists had written to the State government or to the President of India, it could not be considered to be a valid ground to commute the death sentence, the counter reiterated. Bowing to their demand would set a bad precedent and in the future it was likely to create and be a cause for communal and religious protests and unrest. Some persons/politicians demanded the commutation for political mileage. Public support could not be a benchmark or scale to measure, it said.
The decision of the President was not arbitrary and was not based on extraneous considerations. Justice had to be done not only to the convicts but also to the victims, the counters said.
Source: Tamil Nadu | Updated Oct 30, 2011 at 11:01am IST
Express News Service , The New Indian Express
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-time-cap-for-mercy-petitions-says-centre/197241-60-118.html accessed on 8th Nov 2011
Nullifying the trio’s main contention that there was inordinate delay of over 11 years in disposing of their mercy petitions, the counter said the exercise of the power under this Article was not curtailed by any limitation as to the time frame within which such power conferred might be exercised. It was a special power overriding all other laws, rules and regulations in force. No time frame could be stipulated or set up for the President in this regard. Delay by itself did not entail the persons under sentence of death to demand for quashing of the sentence or converting it into life imprisonment. So, there could be no fixed period within which any mercy petition ought to be disposed of. The contention that if the mercy petition was not disposed of within a fixed period, it would render the sentence of death inexecutable, was untenable. The court, in exercise of power under Article 226 or Article 32, could not prescribe a time limit for disposal of the mercy petition. The citations of the Supreme Court judgments by the petitioners would not apply in this case, the counters said.
Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan had lived a normal life in prison like any other prisoner and were given opportunities to develop their skills. They were allowed to pursue their studies as well as other literary and cultural activities in the prison. So, it was fanciful to contend that they suffered mental torture, which caused violation of their fundamental rights, the counters said.
The behaviour of the trio in the prison, even if good, could not take away the reality that they had committed an extremely gruesome, heinous, cold-blooded and cruel crime. It was a well-planned and predetermined brutal murder with the active connivance and help of the petitioners by the terrorist organisation LTTE, which caused the death of, besides the former PM, 15 other innocent persons. The petitioners deserved the extreme penalty of death and nothing short of it. Giving deterrent punishment alone could prevent potential offenders from committing such crimes, the counters reiterated.
Just because some eminent personalities, social organisations, political parties, MPs, MLAs, former judges and jurists had written to the State government or to the President of India, it could not be considered to be a valid ground to commute the death sentence, the counter reiterated. Bowing to their demand would set a bad precedent and in the future it was likely to create and be a cause for communal and religious protests and unrest. Some persons/politicians demanded the commutation for political mileage. Public support could not be a benchmark or scale to measure, it said.
The decision of the President was not arbitrary and was not based on extraneous considerations. Justice had to be done not only to the convicts but also to the victims, the counters said.
Source: Tamil Nadu | Updated Oct 30, 2011 at 11:01am IST
Express News Service , The New Indian Express
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-time-cap-for-mercy-petitions-says-centre/197241-60-118.html accessed on 8th Nov 2011
Assemblies cannot seek clemency for death-row convicts: Achary
The former Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha, P.D.T. Achary, has warned that the recent resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly seeking the President to commute the death sentence of three of Rajiv Gandhi's killers and a similar attempt made by the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in favour of Parliament attack case convict Afzal Guru might result in “unintended consequences.”
Mr. Achary told The Hindu on Thursday that neither the State government has constitutionally-sanctioned powers in this regard nor can the Assembly perform that role.
“In other words, the Legislative Assembly of a State has no power to request the President to consider a mercy petition in a particular way,” he pointed out.
Commenting on the powers of the State legislatures to pass such resolutions seeking mercy for the convicts even after the President has rejected them, Mr. Achary said: “Passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking Presidential pardon for someone who did an act of terrorism is tantamount to saying ‘He is our terrorist, therefore, please spare him.' This message goes across the world.”
The steps taken by the two Assemblies had caused considerable consternation in the Parliamentary and political circles and raised serious constitutional and political questions.
Under the Constitutional scheme, State Legislatures had been given exclusive legislative powers in respect of items in the State List. They could also legislate on matters in the Concurrent List, except in a case of repugnancy where the law made by Parliament on that subject would prevail.
Jurisdiction
As per rules, a State Legislature could consider a matter through a resolution only if it was within the State's jurisdiction.
Through a resolution a Legislative House calls the attention of the State government to a matter or situation for consideration by that government. Constitutionally speaking, the government could consider the same only if the matter concerns it.
“It seems that there is a certain amount of confusion in the minds of the Assembly Speakers on the competence of State Legislatures to consider such resolutions. Unlike in the U.S., where the residuary powers vest in the States, in India the Constitution vests the residuary powers in Parliament only. So the State Legislature cannot deal with a matter which is outside the area assigned to it by the Constitution.”
“But by no stretch of imagination can we think that the State governments have the jurisdiction to consider the resolutions brought before these two Assemblies seeking Presidential clemency for the convicts and can act on them. In respect of mercy petitions, the President acts on the advice of his or her Council of Ministers. So, what is the role of a State government in this matter? Nothing,” Mr. Achary asserted.
Whatever be the political compulsions, a legislative body is required to function within the framework of constitutional rules and passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking Presidential clemency for a convict is an unprecedented act.
Pointing out that there was an irresistible temptation among the Indian political class to succumb to such pressures, he observed: “Rule of law is what steers the ship of democratic institutions out of the turgid waters of sectarian pressures.”
A precedent, once set, was followed by others in future. Generally, the presiding officers of the legislatures took great amount of care while dealing with issues of constitutional significance, Mr. Achary added.
Source: The Hindu
NEW DELHI, October 27, 2011
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2574161.ece accessed on 8th November 2011
Mr. Achary told The Hindu on Thursday that neither the State government has constitutionally-sanctioned powers in this regard nor can the Assembly perform that role.
“In other words, the Legislative Assembly of a State has no power to request the President to consider a mercy petition in a particular way,” he pointed out.
Commenting on the powers of the State legislatures to pass such resolutions seeking mercy for the convicts even after the President has rejected them, Mr. Achary said: “Passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking Presidential pardon for someone who did an act of terrorism is tantamount to saying ‘He is our terrorist, therefore, please spare him.' This message goes across the world.”
The steps taken by the two Assemblies had caused considerable consternation in the Parliamentary and political circles and raised serious constitutional and political questions.
Under the Constitutional scheme, State Legislatures had been given exclusive legislative powers in respect of items in the State List. They could also legislate on matters in the Concurrent List, except in a case of repugnancy where the law made by Parliament on that subject would prevail.
Jurisdiction
As per rules, a State Legislature could consider a matter through a resolution only if it was within the State's jurisdiction.
Through a resolution a Legislative House calls the attention of the State government to a matter or situation for consideration by that government. Constitutionally speaking, the government could consider the same only if the matter concerns it.
“It seems that there is a certain amount of confusion in the minds of the Assembly Speakers on the competence of State Legislatures to consider such resolutions. Unlike in the U.S., where the residuary powers vest in the States, in India the Constitution vests the residuary powers in Parliament only. So the State Legislature cannot deal with a matter which is outside the area assigned to it by the Constitution.”
“But by no stretch of imagination can we think that the State governments have the jurisdiction to consider the resolutions brought before these two Assemblies seeking Presidential clemency for the convicts and can act on them. In respect of mercy petitions, the President acts on the advice of his or her Council of Ministers. So, what is the role of a State government in this matter? Nothing,” Mr. Achary asserted.
Whatever be the political compulsions, a legislative body is required to function within the framework of constitutional rules and passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking Presidential clemency for a convict is an unprecedented act.
Pointing out that there was an irresistible temptation among the Indian political class to succumb to such pressures, he observed: “Rule of law is what steers the ship of democratic institutions out of the turgid waters of sectarian pressures.”
A precedent, once set, was followed by others in future. Generally, the presiding officers of the legislatures took great amount of care while dealing with issues of constitutional significance, Mr. Achary added.
Source: The Hindu
NEW DELHI, October 27, 2011
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2574161.ece accessed on 8th November 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)