Constitutionally incorrect to hang the three, says judge who confirmed death for Rajiv killers

CHENNAI: It would be 'constitutionally incorrect' now to hang the three people sentenced to death in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, said Justice K T Thomas, who headed the Supreme Court bench that confirmed the death sentences. "It was my misfortune to have presided over that bench," he told TOI. More than 13 years ago, it was a three-judge bench headed by Justice Thomas that confirmed death sentence for Nalini Sriharan, Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan. Nalini's death penalty was commuted to imprisonment for life by Tamil Nadu governor in April 2000 on the basis of a recommendation of the state cabinet and a public appeal by Sonia Gandhi. The TADA had originally awarded death sentence to all the 26 accused persons. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, which was the only appellate forum under theRajiv Gan as a referred trial, capital punishment was confirmed only for four. In an interview, Justice Thomas said the judgment itself had 'errors' as the death sentences had not considered the antecedents, nature and character of the accused. Hence any decision to hang the three could now be termed as 'constitutionally incorrect' and a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, he told TOI. Going a step further, the judge said case deserved a review, considering the antecedents and character of Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan. "At a time when the Supreme Court bench headed by me pronounced judgments in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, apparently, we did not consider the nature and character of the accused who were sentenced to death penalty by us. It was only many years thereafter a bench headed by Justice S B Sinha pointed out that without considering the nature and character of accused, a death sentence should never be awarded. His judgments mentioned errors in previous SC judgments and that applies to Rajiv Gandhi assassination case," he said. Also, he pointed out the three have been in prison for 22 years. "For any life imprisonment, every prisoner is entitled to have a right to get his case reviewed by the jail authorities (to determine) whether remission can be announced or not. Since the accused in Rajiv Gandhi case were death convicts, they underwent a long period of imprisonment without even having the benefit of life imprisonment," he said. "This appears to be a third type of sentence, something which is unheard and constitutionally incorrect. If they are hanged today or tomorrow, they will be subjected to two penalties for one offense." In 1999, Justice Thomas had agreed with two others on the bench in respect of death penalty for only Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan. As for Murugan's wife Nalini, he gave a dissenting, but minority, verdict preferring imprisonment for life. When TOI contacted Justice V R Krishna Iyer, former judge of the Supreme Court, he said death penalty could not be considered as a punishment. "It is just another act of murder, a judicial murder, by the state. It is high time for India to abolish death penalty and India has not gained anything from death penalties in the past," he said. The three death convicts have completed almost 22 years of imprisonment. Their execution, which was scheduled to be held on September 9, 2011, was stayed by the Madras high court for six weeks in August that year. The case has since been transferred to the Supreme Court, to be decided after the Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar case verdict is delivered. Courtesy : http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-02-24/india/37269646_1_penalty-rajiv-gandhi-assassination-case-death-convicts

Execution of Verappan aides stayed for 6 weeks

The supreme court of India has stayed the execution of Verappan aides for 6 more weeks. The sc on Wednesday stated that it would wait for the judgement to be passed by the other bench who has heard similar petitions in April 2012.

SC stays execution of Veerappan aides till Wednesday

The apex court will hear the petition filed by advocate Shamik Narain, on behalf of the four convicts, on Wednesday The Supreme Court on Monday stayed till further orders the execution of death sentence of four aides of sandalwood smuggler Veerappan, who were awarded capital punishment in 2004 for a landmine blast in Karnataka that left 22 police personnel dead. The bench posted the matter for Wednesday. “In the meantime, the execution of death sentence of four convicts shall remain stayed,” a bench comprising Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and justices A.R. Dave and Vikramajit Sen said. “Let the writ petition be heard day after tomorrow,” it said. The petition on behalf of the four convicts was filed by advocate Shamik Narain, who was given the liberty to amend and rectify it after objections were raised on its maintainability by Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati who was asked to assist the court. Courtesy : thehindu.com http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-stays-execution-of-veerappan-aides-till-wednesday/article4427560.ece?homepage=true

Supreme Court refuses to hear Veerappan aides' petition urgently, says no proof their date of hanging fixed

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has refused urgent hearing on the plea of four aides of sandalwood smuggler Veerappan seeking stay of execution of their death penalty reportedly fixed for Sunday, saying there was no proof about it. The court said on Saturday that the petition, filed by advocate Shamik Narain on behalf of the four, can be heard at a later date. (Watch) "Well, we filed the case, Article 32 petition for a stay on execution because we received information from inside the jail that the gallows are being prepared for their execution tomorrow morning. And there is high security around the prison today. On that basis, we moved the Supreme Court today and I am informed that the court will not hear the petition and the reason given is that there is no evidence that they are going to be hanged tomorrow, it is only hearsay," Colin Gonsalves, Advocate for petitioners, told NDTV yesterday. The four convicts - Veerappan's elder brother Gnanaprakash, Simon, Meesekar Madaiah and Bilavendran - have been on death row since 2004, when the Supreme Court sentenced them to death for killing 22 policemen and forest personnel from Tamil Nadu in a landmine blast at Palar, Karnataka. Their mercy petitions were rejected by President Pranab Mukherjee on Wednesday. The four convicts are lodged in a jail in Belgaum, Karnataka. A court in Mysore had in 2001 sentenced them to life term, which was enhanced to death penalty by the Supreme Court. Their gang leader, Veerappan, was killed in a gun battle with the Tamil Nadu police in 2004. The President's refusal to commute their sentence to life came within days of his rejecting the mercy petition of Afzal Guru, who was convicted for his role in the attack on Parliament in 2001. Guru was hanged at Delhi's Tihar Jail on February 9. Courtesy ndtv.com http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-veerappan-aides-petition-urgently-says-no-proof-their-date-of-hanging--331849?pfrom=home-topstories

Jurist Fali Nariman against death penalty, says laws for life imprisonment must be amended

New Delhi: Senior Supreme Court Advocate Fali Nariman has said that in a country like India, death penalty should be abolished but also empahasised that life imprisonment must mean imprisonment for entire life. The eminent jurist while speaking to Karan Thapar on Devil's Advocate said the law needs to be amended by Parliament to ensure that in the rarest of rare cases life imprisonment means imprisonment for actual life. Below is a transcript of excerpt of the show:Fali Nariman: If by statuette you can say that imprisonment for life notwithstanding the powers of the local and the Central government to commute etc, can be and should be set aside then perhaps you are right. Keeping them for the lifetime is maybe there, but you must remember sovereign function of every republic or every state, the mercy jurisdiction is always open to be exercised. And courts are very reluctant to control it. Karan Thapar: So you are saying, if you don't have life imprisonment which means imprisonment for life.. Fali Nariman: But by law, because today although thereby a judge made law, you do have.. There is a bench decision by three judges, which says so.. That life means life. But in my view that's not quite in accordance with the Indian Penal Code. It will have to be amended. Karan Thapar: Let me interpret what you are saying. You are saying, that if the death penalty is to be abolished, in your eyes, that would be only acceptable if the law is first amended to say that life imprisonment means life imprisonment for life. Fali Nariman: Absolutely. And that the prerogative of mercy, which is a also a Constitutional prerogative, but it can only be done in those circumstances. Karan Thapar: And not otherwise? Fali Nariman: And not otherwise. Courtesy : cnnibn.com http://ibnlive.in.com/news/jurist-fali-nariman-against-death-penalty-says-laws-for-life-imprisonment-must-be-amended/373357-3.html?from=HP

Mercy Petitions of 4 persons rejected...

Simon and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka. Decided by the Supreme Court on 29.04.2004. Criminal Appeal No. 149-150 of 2002. The President of India has rejected the mercy petitions of 4 more persons. Simon, Gnana Prakash, Madhiah and Bilavendra are the names of the persons whose mercy petitions have been rejected. They have been convicted under POTA for an offence which took more than 20 years ago. Their appeals were decided by the Supreme Court of India on 29.01.2004 and since then the accused have been on death row. In this case the trial court while convicting the accused had awarded life imprisonment, but the supreme court enhanced the sentence to death. Its one of the rare cases where the trial court had awarded life sentence and the appellate court has enhanced it to death. While awarding the sentence of life the trial court had held that the accused were apparently gang members of Verrappan and hence were involved in criminal activities because of him. The President of India should have considered the mitigating circumstances while deciding the mercy petition. The trial court had listed several reasons for not granting death sentence to the accused and these circumstances should have been considered and the death sentence should have been commuted.

Afzal Guru hanged ....

Afzal Guru was hanged today morning (9.2.2013) at Tihar jail in Delhi. Afzal Guru was convicted for conspiracy for attack on the Indian Parliament. This is the second time a convict has been hanged without any public knowledge of the date of his hanging and without the convicts family being informed about the date of execution. If media reports are to be believed Afzal Guru has been buried in Tihar jail. A few months ago Kasab, who was convicted for the Mumbai attacks was also executed in a similar way. Question remains why such secrecy was maintained by the government and why the family of Afzal Guru was not informed about the date of execution. May be the family members would have wanted to meet him for the last time. There is no information on when the mercy petition of Afzal Guru was rejected by the President of India. The secrecy in hanging also deprives the convict of challenging the rejection of mercy petition before the courts. Similar cases, where mercy petitions have been rejected and the same has been challenged are pending before the Supreme Court of India. By maintaining the secrecy the government is depriving the convict of exploring his constitutional right and remedies before the judiciary.

Sentence of 2 commuted. Opinion of society to be considered while awarding death sentence

The Supreme Court of India in its judgement dated 7.2.2013 has commuted the death sentence Gurvail Singh and Jaj Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 2006. The incident is of 21.8.2000 where 4 members of a family were killed due to land dispute. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had upheld the conviction and the death sentence that was awarded to the 2 accused in this case by the trial court. The Supreme Court while commuting the sentence of both the convicts has considered the mitigating circumstances and the age of the convicts at the time of the incident. The Supreme Court has held that while awarding death sentence there should be aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances at all. The court has further held that, even if both the tests are satisfied against the accused even then the court has to finally apply the rarest of rare case test, which depends on the perception of the society and not judge centric, that is whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types of crimes or not. Though the court has commuted the sentence in this case, the observations of the supreme court regarding the will of the society to be considered while awarding death sentence may set a bad precedent. The concern of the society regarding sentence of a person cannot be considered and law and the legislative intent is the sole basis on which the awarding the sentence of death should be decided. Sentencing is and has always been a prerogative of the judges. The opinion of the society may keep varying on the circumstances of each and every case. What forms the opinion of the society and how it is formed is also an important issue and it’s very difficult to conclude whether the opinion has been formed on the basis of trustworthy information or through information that has not been verified and at many times may not be true. The opinion of a society is a very subjective matter and for similar crimes the opinion of society may be different. Apart from the fact that most of the opinion these days is formed on the basis of the media reports, it will also vary on the basis of demography, the position of the accused in the society, the class and caste of the accused and the class and caste of the victim. We may be looking at a dangerous trend if the judicial opinions regarding the life or death of a person are being based on the opinions of the society at large.