Abolish Death Penalty India: April 2012

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Close call between life and death

Apr 14, 2012 - Rohit Raj DC

Considering the issue of death penalty in rarest of rare cases, a division bench of the Kerala High Court on Friday initiated a debate on giving harsher life term to the convicts while sparing the rope.

The Kerala High Court on Friday took a call on the death vs life debate for extreme crimes and a division bench that considered the question stood more in favour of life but did not seek an abolition of death penalty altogether.

While considering the references of death penalty given by various trial courts to 10 convicts, a division bench comprising Justices R. Basant and K. Vinod Chandran opined that a harsher life term (without parole, commutation or remission) should be more of a norm.

Among the death references considered by the court was that of one-handed Govindachamy, the convict in Soumya murder case.

Justice R. Basant, who retired on Friday, opined that death sentence and harsh life imprisonment can be considered by both the high court and the sessions courts. He expressed that both courts have powers to impose a harsher punishment.

According to Justice Basant, a larger bench of five judges should consider the matter and formulate guidelines on this aspect. However, Justice Vinod Chandran had a different opinion and observed that delaying a decision would only prolong the agony and trauma of the convicts.

He said that by a specific order, the apex court had not conferred any such power on trial courts.
Relying on the Supreme Court verdict on the famous Swami Sradhananda case, Justice Vinod Chandran opined: “I agree with Justice Basant on the issue of High Court having power to extend life sentences beyond 14 years. But I have a difference of opinion on sessions court having powers to decide the question.”

On formulating the guidelines, Justice Basant observed that a five-judge bench should arrive at a consensus on awarding death sentences in each case. “Unless a five-judge bench unanimously comes to the conclusion that a death sentence is the only option considering the gravity of the crime, the convict should be given a life term,” he said.

Justice Basant also opined that courts should consider Kerala’s social situation while awarding death sentences. “Kerala should set a model for other states in avoiding death sentences to convicts by extending the life term awarded to the victims,” he observed.

The matter will now go to the Acting Chief Justice Manjula Chellur who will constitute a single bench to take a final call in the issue.

Who holds the supreme power?

While the division bench unanimously agreed for giving extended life terms instead of gallows for those on death row, the two judges differed on who should have the power to decide the question.

While Justice R. Basant suggested that both the high court and the sessions court can wield the power to decide the issue, Justice K. Vinod Chandran was of the view that the power should be exercised by the high court only.

Interestingly, members of the bar too stood divided on the issue. “I cannot accept the view (expressed by Justice K. Vinod Chandran) that sessions court should not consider the question of extending the life term. Sessions courts pass verdicts after conducting the trial so they have every right to consider the issue,” said Advocate Sivan Madathil

Even if the session’s court commits a mistake it can be challenged at the high court and Supreme Court, he said.

However, director general of Prosecution Mr Asaf Ali argued that only Supreme Court can arrive at a decision on whether to extend life terms.

Nizhalkuthu: tale of unjustness

The film, Nizhalkuthu (Shadow Kill), coproduced by Adoor Gopalakrishnan, is about the inherent unjustness of certain punishments.

The film is set in the 1940s in a village of Travancore, British India. Kaliyappan, the last hangman of Travancore dynasty, spends all the time drinking and seeking atonement.

The reason for this self-destruction has been the remorse born out of the feeling that the last man he hanged was an innocent. The late Oduvil Unnikrishnan portrayed Kaliyappan.

10 Who await

Govindachamy - Soumya rape and murder
Kanakaraj - Puthoor Sheela murder case
Antony alias Anthappan - Aluva murder killing 6 persons.
Unni - Kanichikulangara case
Reji Kumar - murdering wife and four children in Pattambi
Lawrence - Idukki murder
Ramachandran - Vandoor case for killing two women
Pradeep Borah - murdering a couple from Orrisa.
Jojo alias Jomon - murder of mother and grandfather in Idukki
Shaju alias Unni - Kollam murder case
Ripper Chandran was the last person to be hanged in the state, in 1991.

source: http://www.asianage.com/india/close-call-between-life-and-death-714
[accessed on 15th April 2012]

Mercy petition: Court raps ‘high drama’ in Rajoana case

Express news service : New Delhi, Fri Mar 30 2012, 00:08 hrs

The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concern over political considerations playing a role in disposal of mercy petitions, indirectly referring to the case of Balwant Singh Rajoana, who was put on death row for the killing of Punjab Chief Beant Singh, as a “telling situation”.

The court observed that a “high drama” was played out in the Rajoana case, and clemency was sought for someone who had assassinated the former chief minister of Punjab.

The remarks from the apex court came a day after Centre stayed Rajoana’s scheduled execution on March 31 after Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal met President Pratibha Patil on Wednesday seeking clemency for Rajoana.

Rajoana’s case had split the political camp with the ruling Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) in Punjab pleading for clemency, while the BJP and the Congress had maintained that law should take its course.

A CBI court had awarded the death sentence to Rajoana and Jagtar Singh Hawara in the Beant Singh case on August 1, 2007. Three others — Lakhwinder Singh, Gurmit Singh and Shamsher Singh — were sentenced to life imprisonment for hatching the conspiracy to kill Beant Singh.

The Chandigarh court had issued the death warrant to the Patiala jail authorities, asking them to hang Rajoana on March 31.

Rajoana had chosen not to appeal against the death penalty.

“What has happened in last four days in a particular state is a telling situation. If the decision was taken at an appropriate time public exchequer would have been saved of many crores of Rupees. Entire thing is a drama,” a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya said.

The court rued how a person convicted of a murder of a chief minister, who has been found guilty of terrorism has found political party support.

The court was hearing an appeal by Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, who was awarded death penalty for triggering a bomb blast here in September 1993 on Raisina Road outside the Youth Congress office killing nine people, to commute his death penalty to life term owing to the “inordinate delay” by the government to decide on his mercy plea.

Curfew imposed in Gurdaspur

Indefinite curfew was imposed in Gurdaspur on Thursday after a clash between two groups protesting the death sentence of Balwant Singh Rajoana in which a youth was killed. The youth, Jaspal Singh was a resident of Sidhwan village in Gurdaspur district.

Another person Ranjit Singh, who sustained bullet injury, was rushed to a hospital in Amritsar in a critical condition. A magisterial probe has been ordered into the incident.

Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/mercy-petition-court-raps-high-drama-in-rajoana-case/930258/2
Indian Express

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

India is one of the 193 countries that retains death penalty. There has always been a few imminent judges who have pronounced compelling verdicts upholding the rights of prisoners on death row. There has been increasing debate in various platforms advocating abolition of death penalty or at least to rethink sentencing policies in India. The Indian government has however always been committed to the retention of the death penalty, irrespective of their political ideology. India has voted against a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) draft resolution on the use of death penalty, saying it goes against the statutory law of the country where an execution is carried out in the "rarest of rare" cases. India retains the death penalty as punishment for a number of crimes including murder, kidnapping, terrorism, desertion, inducement to suicide of a minor or a mentally-retarded person and has more recently in 2013 come to include the offence of rape in certain circumstances. Most recently, there is an outrage over child rape and murder.

After observing an unofficial moratorium of 8 years in India, the Indian Government in November 2012 carried out the execution of Ajmal Kasab, convicted in the Mumbai attacks case, without public knowledge. This was followed by the secret execution of Afzal Guru, convicted in the Parliament attack case of 2001, in February 2013, under similar circumstances, without intimating his immediate family or affording a chance of judicial review. In both cases, the executions were carried out under covert operations conducted by the Government immediately upon rejection of their mercy petitions. Before these executions, the last execution to be carried out in India was that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee in 2004 who was convicted of rape and murder and which sentence was carried out after he had spent 13 years in solitary confinement. Following this, several mercy petitions of death row convicts have come to be rejected. The fear of execution of such convicts is imminent. Bolstered by the Government's unapologetic conduct and public outcry, especially in recent cases of rape and murder reported in the country, the courts are continuing to hand down death sentences at an alarming rate.

In the recent past, there have been a few empirical studies (mainly four) conducted with prisoners on death row. This has highlighted the situation of prisoners on death row.

(1) Most recently the India Exclusion Report 2017-18 found that fair trial rights and guarantees are reduced to a nullity and seeks to breach the citadel of the collective silence. It further said that Convicts on death row in India belong to groups marginalised along the axes of caste, religion, economic vulnerability and educational deprivation, and their fair trial rights, though a part of the Right to Life guaranteed by the Constitution, are invariably non-existent, a survey of 371 out of the 385 persons living under the death sentence and their families has revealed.

(2) Another study was The Death Penalty Research Project (2015) which was conceived with an aim to document the socio-economic profile of prisoners sentenced to death in India and map their experience within the criminal justice system.

There were two other academic studies that were done conducted by Dr. Reena Mary George –

(3)“Voices of prisoners surviving the death row in India” (2014) done through the University of Vienna under the guidance of Prof. Dr. Christoph Reinprecht (Sociology) and Prof. Dr. Manfred Nowak (Law and Ex-United Nations Rapporteur on Torture). George’s research highlights three salient features, namely: poverty, social exclusion and marginalisation are antecedent to death penalty; death penalty is a constructed account by the state machinery; and prisoners on death row situate dignity higher in the juxtaposition of death and dignity.

(4) Another one “Death Penalty – A Human Rights Perspective” (2009) done through the University of Mumbai under the guidance of Retired Justice Hosbet Suresh. This was a study in Maharashtra with the objectives to firstly study the impact of death penalty on the social, mental, and physical being of the inmate and secondly, to study the perception of opinion leaders on death penalty with reference to human rights. All the above reports are public documents.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics 2015, there are 101 prisoners sentenced to death. The actual figure of sentences originally awarded is much higher considering the death sentences of 49 convicts came to be commuted to life imprisonment in the said period. As of today, almost in 2019, the figures are unknown through government statistics, however, research centres claim this figure to be around 371 convicts. During the 1980s the Supreme Court sought to restrict the use of the death penalty by characterizing it as a punishment reserved only for the “rarest of the rare” cases. The doctrine has not had the desired effect. According to a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, Rajindar Sachar: “after the rarest of rare doctrine was introduced in 1980, the Supreme Court confirmed death penalty in 40 per cent of cases in the period 1980-90 while it was 37.7 per cent between 1970 and 1980. For the high courts it rose from 59 per cent in 1970-80 to 65 per cent during 1980-90”. Over the past two decades the death penalty has been extended to include more crimes and been handed down with increasing frequency.

Most recently while commuting a sentence in Supreme Court (2018), Justice Joseph did not seek the reconsideration of the Bachan Singh judgment, but only sought to re-examine the purpose and practice of the death penalty, and whether as a punishment, it serves any goal at all. In other words, the death penalty can continue to remain constitutionally valid because of the Bachan Singh judgment, but its application in substantive cases coming before the court must be restricted to only those cases which meet the criteria laid down in that case.

While updating the blog and conducting my own empirical studies, I observed the heinous nature of the crimes that were committed and thought about the families, about their loss, about the victims who for no fault of their own died. If I lost my relative or a dear friend, would I still oppose death penalty and would I still advocate to abolish the death sentence? Having worked in the criminal justice system and also having the seen the other side, where often it is the marginalized, vulnerable and oppressed who are on death row makes me want to advocate for abolition of this punishment. Victims should definitely get justice for their loss, for their pain. No one should escape the rule of law. As long as humanity exists; crime will exist. Should we not re-consider our sentencing policies?

Reena Mary George