Collective Conscience or Collective Vengeance?

“Sovereignty means the capacity to define who matters and who does not, who is disposable and who is not.” - Achille Mbembe in Necropolitics (Public Culture, Winter 2003 15(1))

I am here to discuss the hanging of Afzal Guru and what we can learn from it. He supposedly masterminded the attack on the Parliament of India in 2001. For this ‘act of terrorism’ he was given death penalty and his mercy petition was rejected by the President. Subsequently he was hanged on 9th February 2013. Some celebrated the day saying justice was at last done whereas some mourned the day as the death of Indian democracy. There are many who think that he deserved to die and many who did not. Initially, I also believed that he deserved to die. But when I started reading about his case and also the judgments, I was shocked at what had happened.

Who was Afzal Guru?
Afzal Guru, a young Kashmiri medical student, influenced by the political climate in the valley in early 1990s, dropped out of college and joined the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front,(JKLF). Like many others he crossed over to other side of Kashmir. Afzal came back disillusioned because in his opinion Pakistani politicians treated Kashmiris just like the Indians. He voluntarily surrendered to the Border Security Force (BSF) and they issued him a certificate of surrendered militant. Contrary to Afzal’s expectations, as a surrendered militant, he was constantly picked up, harassed, agonized and threatened by security agencies like Army, BSF, and State Task Force (STF). This continued despite his efforts to settle down; start his own business, get married and lead a “normal” married life. Once he was picked up and put in Humhama STF torture camp. Inspector Shanti Singh electrocuted Afzal till he agreed to pay a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh. After this incident he was both mentally and financially broke. He had to take medical treatment to heal injuries and to regain his potency. It was then that he realized that it was better to cooperate with the STF and pay bribes in order to avoid torture.

What landed Afzal in trouble?
It all started when DSP Davinder Singh of the STF asked Afzal to do a “small” job namely, take a man to Delhi and find him a rented place. This man was later identified as Mohammad, one of the gunmen who attacked the parliament. Mohammad visited many people before the attacks in Delhi and also offered Afzal Rs. 35,000 as a gift. Afzal left for Srinagar after taking the money. Before he could board the bus to Sopore, he was picked up from Srinagar bus- stand. He was later on transferred to STF headquarters and later to Delhi. In Delhi, Afzal was kept in the ‘torture chamber’ of the Delhi Police Special Cell. He was, as per a number of sources, tutored to say that he, Shaukat, his wife and SAR Geelani were the people behind the attack on the Parliament. The police threatened and tortured him and used his family’s security to browbeat him into accepting the charges. The Special Police created evidences by taking him to different places and markets that Mohammad had visited. He was also made to sign some 200-300 blank pages.

Why was Afzal picked up?
 On the 13th of December 2001, five heavily armed militants (terrorist) stormed into the Parliament complex. They opened fire indiscriminately and killed 9 people and injured 16. The terrorists were killed after 30 minutes of gun battle. Just before the attack, it was alleged that the militants got in touch with Afzal over mobile phones and instructed him to find out the presence and the location of the VVIP’s inside the parliament.

A‘comprehensive investigation’and conviction?
The investigation of the Parliament attacks was completed in 17 days flat by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police. This shows the government’s inclination to fast track the case. Twelve people, including the five who were earlier shot dead during the Parliament shoot-out, were deemed to be the main accused. Gazi Baba, Masood Azhar and Tariq, the alleged masterminds were never arrested. Gazi Baba was shot dead in an encounter in 2004. Only four, Afzal Guru, his cousin Shaukat Hussain, Shaukat’s wife Afsan Guru and SAR Geelani, Teacher of Arabic in Delhi University, were arrested. Afzal alone was tried under Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA). While filing the charge sheet some of the important evidences were not included. According to Afzal, “If phone number records … (had been) seen carefully the court would have come to know the phone number of STF. I was not given chance in the designated court to tell the real story,”

When the case was in the session’s court Afzal did not get a fair trial. To start with he did not get a lawyer to fight his case because he was poor to pay the required fees. The five lawyers whom Afzal named were not willing to represent him. The court appointed lawyer Neeraj Bansal did not meet Afzal before he represented him. The prosecution based their argument on Afzal’s confession. There were no direct evidences against him. Witnesses of the prosecution never alleged that Afzal was associated with or belonged to any terrorist organisation. According to Nandita Haksar, Bansal did not cross-examine even the crucial witnesses adequately enough; this included Inspector H. S. Gill’s, on whose testimony Afzal was given death sentence. Special Court Judge, S. N. Dhingra clearly showed his bias to the investigative agency. This is clear from his statement: “There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of any of the police officers as none of police officers were having any kind of enmity against any of the accused persons”. He had similar observations about the other witnesses who testified against the accused. Justice Dhingra justified the violation of rules, regulations and procedures by the police by referring to the seriousness of the offence. Hence he denied the accused his rights under the law. When the case went to the Delhi High Court it was a referred case. The main damage was done when Afzal was presented to the media for a televised nationwide ‘confession’. The court castigated the investigators for doctoring the evidences and making Afzal sign blank papers. Despite these observations, “the courts did not pass any strictures against the officers for their shoddy and illegal investigations,” says Nandita Haksar. The High Court refused a retrial. The right to be defended by a lawyer is not only a Fundamental Right but it is a guarantee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and India is a party to it. Article 21 deals with right to be assisted by counsel from the time of arrest and during the trial. Article 22 (1&2) and 39 A deals with equal justice and frees legal aid. The proceedings in both the trial court and the High Court clearly show violations of fundamental and constitutional rights.

When the review petition reached the Supreme Court, it made the following observations: “Taking an overall view of the assistance given by the court and the performance of the counsel, it cannot be said that the accused was denied the facility of effective defence”. “Criticism against the counsel seems to be an afterthought raised at the appellate stage” (SCJ, p 139). So the question is where else could it be raised and who could have raised it at the trial stage? It acquitted Afzal from the charges of belonging to a terrorist organization. No evidence was produced by the prosecution to establish Afzal’s link with any banned outfit. The Court rejected the media confession because it found that it was extracted by torture. The Supreme Court acquitted Afsan Guru, G.A.R Geelani and sentenced Shaukat Hussain to ten years in rigorous imprisonment. In case of Afzal the Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s judgment and referred it to be a ‘rarest of rare’ case, sentencing him to death. The Court said: “The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.” It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court also succumbed to the common emotion of retributive justice. Afzal’s wife, Tabasum filed for a mercy petition with President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. The Delhi government rejected the mercy petition and endorsed capital punishment by the Supreme Court to Afzal. Afzal wrote to the Supreme Court requesting to be shifted from Tihar jail to Srinagar Central Jail. Only the government could address the grievances about the transfer, since the Supreme Court had rejected his appeal. The government refused his requests.

The hanging of Afzal Guru got more steam after Kasab was hanged. After Kasab’s hanging the Union Home Minister examines Afzal Guru’s file, President Pranab Mukherjee rejected his mercy plea on 3 February 2013. Afzal was subsequently hanged on the 9th February 2013 in Tihar jail and buried there. The manner in which the entire episode was dealt raised far too many uncomfortable questions.

To start with once the mercy plea was rejected, the government should have informed the family. Afzal could have appealed to the Supreme Court asking reasons for the rejection of his mercy plea. The government decided to hang Afzal in complete secrecy on the 9th February. To make matters worse, as Union Home Secretary, R.K. Singh told journalist: “His family was informed about the decision of the government to reject his mercy petition… This was done through Speed Post,” From all accounts the letter was sent out to his family in Srinagar on February 8, 2013. The family was not even consulted about the burial. At least after hanging the body could have been given to the kin. The government took decision to bury him next to Maqbool Bhat in Tihar Jail. The family of Afzal Guru has been pleading to get his body back; however the government does not seem to act upon that request His hanging had brought some unity among the political class. Politicians were in praise of the Union governments decision.Many were quoted saying something on the lines of ‘justice was done at last’, ‘it was the victory of democracy’, ‘nations conscience was satisfied’ etc. Many people were celebrating and distributing sweets. Immediately after his hanging, many activist in Delhi protested silently against the hanging in Jantar Mantar. The police watched and participated while young and brave University students, several of them Kashmiri, were beaten up. Respected civil liberties activists, lawyers, and even journalists were abused, kicked, beaten, and their faces blackened. It is believed that it was primarily the right wing Hindutva groups that carried out this act of violence.

Curfew was clamped upon Jammu and Kashmir; it lasted for about 5 days. In his last letter Afzal says, “I am about to be hanged. Now, near the gallows, I want to tell you (family elders) that I was not given enough time to write a detailed letter. I am thankful that Allah chose me for this sacrifice. And please, take care of Tabasum and Galib,”

Several questions that one needs to ask: Why was the news of mercy plea rejection not informed to the family? Why was Afzals family not informed about the date of the hanging? Does the government have any responsibility to deliver messages via speed post? Is it democracy when the state is put under curfew because one Kashmiri was hanged? I don’t know if this government can or will reply any of these questions. I do feel ashamed by what my ‘representatives’ have done. It is not the day we have upheld democracy, but have simply failed it.

To conclude, with three of the “estates of democracy” surrounding him, Mohammad Afzal had little chance of escaping the hangman. As Nirmalangshu Mukherji had noted rather prophetically: “as the noose tightens, Afzal will die in silence.” That is what seems to have happened. However, the protests from various sources hold some promise. By: Ashwin Parthasarathy (University of Mumbai Student - Department of Civics and Politics)

Source: http://chaurahha.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/collective-conscience-or-collective-vengeance/
Re-posted with permission

Anti-rape bill gets Rajya Sabha nod (and introduces capital punishment for certain offences)

NEW DELHI March 22, 2013 : Parliament on Thursday passed the anti-rape bill with Rajya Sabha approving it with voice vote in the same form as it was passed by Lok Sabha two days ago. The bill provides for not only stringent punishment for rapists and repeat offenders but also makes maiden provisions of strict punishment for offences like stalking, voyeurism, disrobing and acid attacks. The bill, which will now replace the existing anti-rape ordinance, provides for even capital punishment for rapist if the act causes death for victim or leave her in a permanent vegetative state. Repeat offenders may also get death penalty under the new law. Unlike the ordinance, the bill keeps rape as a gender-specific crime where only a male can be booked for committing such offence. It, keeps the age of consent at 18 in sync with ordinance which was promulgated on February 3 in the wake of public outrage over the December 16 Nirbhaya gang rape incident. Though the Left party members moved certain amendments as they did not want offences like stalking and voyeurism be made bailable for a first time crime and also did not favour the provision of capital punishment in the bill, they did not press for division. Their amendments - moved by CPI member D Raja and CPM member TN Seema - were negated with voice vote. Unlike Lok Sabha, presence of members in the Upper House was relatively good as more than half of the MPs (140), including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, were present at the time of passing of the vote. Though the number was not even one-fourth when the crucial bill was being discussed, several members later turned up before home minister Sushilkumar Shinde moved the legislation for passing. The PM, who is member of the Rajya Sabha, however, sat through the almost entire discussion. The bill was moved after nearly two hours of debate as members agreed to rush through it keeping in mind the sensitivity of DMK and AIADMK which wanted to wind up the discussion before 3:30 pm, when the UNHRC in Geneva was to take up the resolution on Sri Lanka. Though members could not adhere to the timeline and the bill was finally passed around 4 pm, DMK members were seen carrying placards - showing pictures of slain minor son of LTTE supremo Prabhakaran - during the proceedings after 3:30 pm. As soon as the bill was passed, DMK and AIADMK members entered the well of the House, forcing chairman Hamid Ansari to adjourn it for the day. Replying to the short debate over the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013, Shinde said the bill enhanced punishment for various crimes against women and for the first time made it a punishable offence for police personnel not to register a first information report (FIR). On human trafficking of minors, the minister said the government has taken cognizance of this offence and certain sections have been incorporated to give stringent punishment. "Police officers and executive officers involved in such offence will also be punished under the law," he said. Responding to members' concern over efficacy of the system in dealing with cases of sexual crimes committed by influential people like politicians, Shinde said the bill has a provision which prescribes punishment to persons having "dominance" and this can be used to deal with politicians. The bill prescribed a punishment ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment if someone is involved in trafficking a minor and a jail term of 14 years that may be extended to life term if the offender is involved in trafficking more than one minor. For acid attack that caused harm to the victim, the offender will get a jail term of minimum 10 years, which can be extended to life term. An offender can attract a penalty of five to seven years if he attempted acid attack. Courtesy : http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-03-22/india/37937404_1_stringent-punishment-capital-punishment-ltte-supremo-prabhakaran

Nine prisoners at risk of execution in India: Amnesty International

Statement published on 21 February 2013 by Amensty International on http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA20/008/2013/en/900ca575-e03d-4e9c-b29b-0bdd3ede6744/asa200082013en.html

NINE PRISONERS AT RISK OF EXECUTION

Following two recent secret executions in India, there is fear that the Indian authorities may execute nine other prisoners whose petitions for mercy have not yet been ruled on. The mercy petitions of eight men and one woman are pending with either the Union Home Ministry or the President: Gurmeet Singh, Dharampal, Suresh, Ramji, Praveen Kumar, Jafar Ali, Sonia (f), Sanjeev, and Sundar Singh. Ministers have publicly stated that decisions on some of these petitions will be made soon, putting the nine in imminent danger of execution. The manner in which the Indian authorities have dealt with executions recently raises serious concerns and increases the risk of executions. Mercy petitions are generally considered in the order in which they are filed. However, the authorities have started to consider cases out of turn, making it difficult to determine which case is being considered when. The two recent executions were announced to the public after being carried out; this is in violation of international standards on the use of the death penalty and makes timely interventions before executions impossible. This means we can no longer know which mercy petitions are being considered, when decisions are be made, and whether these decisions would be public. The Indian government executed Pakistani national Ajmal Kasab on 21 November 2012, for involvement in the 2008 Mumbai multiple attacks. This was the first execution in India in eight years. On 9 February, they executed Afzal Guru, convicted for the attack on India’s parliament in December 2001. These two executions were considered out of turn and were not announced to the public until they had been carried out. The relevant government minister publicly stated that no prior announcement was made in Ajmal Kasab’s case in order to avoid intervention from human rights activists. In Afzal Guru’s case, the family only received notification of the execution after it had been carried out, and the body was not returned to them for burial.

Please write immediately in English or your own language:

- Urging Indian authorities to stop plans to execute Gurmeet Singh, Dharampal, Suresh, Ramji, Praveen Kumar, Jafar Ali, Sonia, Sanjeev, and Sundar Singh, and all other executions;

- Urging Indian authorities to commute all death sentences to terms of imprisonment;

- Reminding Indian Authorities that the UN General Assembly has called repeatedly for a moratorium on executions, with a view to abolishing the death penalty, and pointing out that India's decision to resume executions has set it against the global trend towards abolition.

PLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 4 APRIL 2013 TO:

�

President

President Pranab Mukherjee

Rashtrapati Bhavan

New Delhi 110 004, India

Fax: +91 11 23017290;

+91 11 23017824

Email: (via website)

http://www.helpline.rb.nic.in/

Salutation: Dear President Mukherjee

Prime Minister

Dr. Manmohan Singh

South Block, Raisina Hill

New Delhi 110 001, India

Email: (via website)

http://pmindia.gov.in/feedback.php

Salutation: Dear Prime Minister

And copies to:

Minister of Home Affairs

Sushilkumar Shinde

104, North Block,

Central Secretariat

New Delhi 110001, India

Fax: + 91 11 23094221

Email: hm@nic.in

Salutation: Dear Minister�

Also send copies to diplomatic representatives accredited to your country.

Please check with your section office if sending appeals after the above date. This is the second update of UA 337/12. Further information: http://amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA20/004/2013/en

�

URGENT ACTION

nine prisoners at risk of execution


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Since taking office in July 2012, India’s President Pranab Mukherjee, has rejected the mercy petitions of seven people on death row and commuted the death sentence of one prisoner, after which the two secret executions took place. The five remaining prisoners whose mercy petitions have now been rejected are: Saibanna Ningappa Natikar, Gnanprakasham, Simon, Meesekar Madaiah, and Bilavendran. Before the two executions in 2012, the last execution in India had been that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee in August 2004. This move to resume executions has set the country against the regional and global trend towards abolition of the death penalty. The authorities used to make information about the rejection of mercy petitions and dates of execution available to the public before any executions. In resolution 2005/59 the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon all states that still maintain the death penalty "to make available to the public information with regard to the imposition of the death penalty and to any scheduled execution". In total, 140 countries are abolitionist in law or in practice. In 2011, only 21 states in the world executed, meaning that 90 per cent of the world was execution-free. Out of 41 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, 17 have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, 10 are abolitionist in practice and one – Fiji – uses the death penalty only for exceptional military crimes. Over the past 10 years, four Asia-Pacific countries abolished the death penalty for all crimes: Bhutan and Samoa in 2004, the Philippines in 2006 and the Cook Islands in 2007. In 2012, Mongolia became a State Party to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. UN bodies and mechanisms have repeatedly called upon member states to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty, including through the adoption of four UN General Assembly resolutions, in December 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012. India voted against all four resolutions. In a general comment on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which India is a State Party, the UN Human Rights Committee stated that Article 6 "refers generally to abolition [of the death penalty] in terms which strongly suggest ... that abolition is desirable. The Committee concludes that all measures of abolition should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to life." Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases as a violation of the right to life and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, regardless of the nature of the crime; guilt, innocence or other characteristics of the individual; or the method used by the state to carry out the execution.

Names: Gurmeet Singh, Dharampal, Suresh, Ramji, Praveen Kumar, Jafar Ali, Sonia (f), Sanjeev, and Sundar Singh
Gender m/f: both

Further information on UA: 337/12 Index: ASA 20/008/2013

Marines back after ‘no-death’ assurance

NEW DELHI, 22 MARCH 2013 : The two Italian marines accused of killing two fishermen off the Kerala coast returned here today after India gave an assurance that they will not face death penalty nor will they be arrested, bringing to an end a raging 11-day diplomatic row between the two countries. The marines, Massimiliano Latore and Salvatore Girone, arrested in connection with the killing of the fishermen in February last year, returned late this evening in the company of Italian Deputy Foreign Minister Steffan de Mistura in a military plane. The dramatic u-turn by the Italian government, which had earlier last week said the two marines would not be sent back, enabled the marines to meet the deadline set by the Supreme Court when it gave them permission to go for a month to vote in the elections there. With the Supreme Court acting tough and restraining the Italian Ambassador Daniele Mancini from leaving the country, Italy sought and got assurances to enable the marines' return. External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid, who denied any deal was reached on the issue, told Parliament that Italy had sought “clarifications” on death penalty and other issues which were a matter of “concern” to that country. “It (Italy) sought from India clarifications regarding the conditions applicable to the marines on their return and the provisions regarding the death penalty that could be applicable in this case which was an Italian concern. “Notwithstanding the pending proceedings, the government has informed the Italian government that the two marines will not be liable for arrest if they return within the time frame laid down by the Supreme Court of India,” he said. India also allayed Italy's fears by saying that “according to well-settled Indian jurisprudence, this case would not fall in the category of matters which attract the death penalty, that is to say the rarest of rare cases. Therefore, there need not be any apprehension in this regard,” Mr Khurshid said. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who was bitter after Italy reneged on its commitments earlier, welcomed the decision to send back the marines, saying the “integrity and dignity of Indian judicial process has been upheld”. He expressed happiness that the matter was being “brought to a satisfactory conclusion” and the trial will now proceed as per the directions of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the government and the Opposition clashed over who gets the credit for Italy sending back its two Marines to India to face trial, a decision welcomed across the political spectrum. Mr Khurshid credited Government's diplomacy for the return of the marines to face trial in the killing of two Indian fishermen off the Kerala coast last year. “I can certainly say we have been in constant contact. I have repeatedly said that you should not write off diplomacy too soon. So at last I can say that diplomacy continues to work when everybody else thinks that everything is lost and please give diplomacy a little more chance to do things that are important for our country,” he said. “The MEA was in the forefront.” Mr Khurshid said he found it difficult to concede that the Opposition contributed to the resolution of the diplomatic standoff between India and Italy. “I find it difficult to accept that postures and positions taken by Opposition leaders could have contributed to this,” he said. At the same time, he acknowledged that the Supreme Court's position too helped resolve the crisis. 

Diplomatic row was necessary: Italian govt

ROME, 22 MARCH: Italy today said that a diplomatic row with India over the marines accused of killing two Indian fishermen was “necessary” to make sure the men did not face the death penalty. “The situation is normalising,” Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi told La Repubblica daily after Italy's surprise climbdown last night in the row that saw the Indian Supreme Court ordering the Italian ambassador not to leave the country. Justifying their earlier decision not to send back the marines, Mr Terzi said that without buying time for talks by reneging on the pledge to return the pair, “we would not have been able to negotiate the current conditions, which envisage (good) conditions of everyday living and the guarantee that the death penalty will not applied”. pti

Courtesy : http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=448923&catid=35

Mumbai Mirror : The story with half an ending by Jyoti Punwani

Jyoti Punwani is a freelancer and one of Mumbai's few journalists who sat through nearly every hearing of the trial of the 1992-93 riots, sometimes even borrowing a pen from prime accused Madhukar Sarpotdar to take notes in court.

The riots of December 1992-January 1993 that tore at Bombay were always for me THE story; the March 12, 1993 blasts that followed held no complexities, and hence no fascination. There was, of course, the odd effort to get the story of someone wrongly implicated into the papers, an impossible job then. But the blasts became a story six years after the event by two unconnected incidents. One was an envelope from Arthur Road Jail that landed on my desk. It contained a copy of the 12-page letter written by Yakub Memon, brother of Tiger Memon, to the Chief Justice of India. In it he detailed his story, from his very normal life till March 1993 (“Where was the time to hate?” he asked), to his decision to come back to his own country from Pakistan to clear his name and reveal everything about Pakistan’s hand in the blasts. “I am a good citizen,” he wrote. “I have tried to help the government in whatever manner I could. After all, why am I being made to suffer? Only for the sole reason that the alleged prime accused is in relation to me? …When this case will come to its logical end and the truth will unravel, everybody will come to know about my humble effort and sacrifice. But this will take considerable time. Till then, my life is being ruined.” What must Yakub have felt yesterday when the Supreme Court upheld his death sentence and described him as one of the “archers”? More importantly, what has stopped the Indian government from going after the real mastermind: Tiger Memon? Dawood Ibrahim of course, remains out of reach for reasons everyone knows. The second incident was the series of interviews I did with for a book called Bombay and Mumbai. That’s when I really understood how the blasts had changed the city. The humiliation of Muslims that had been going on even after the riots ended in January, came to an overnight stop after March 12, 1993. Muslims having to give up their seats in trains, being refused change in buses, Muslim girls being grabbed on the street - all this vanished to be replaced with looks of fear at any Muslim who happened to be travelling with a briefcase. The image of the Muslim-who-hadbeen-taught-a-lesson had been replaced with the Muslim-asterrorist. But while this killing of random innocent Hindus restored a crude balance of power between Muslims as a community and those Hindus who were preying on them, another skewed balance became even more so: during the riots, the police hadn’t hesitated at treating Muslims, even those in distress, as the enemy. Now, they did so in pursuit of a legitimate enemy. All Muslims became suspect, but it was the Memons who bore the brunt, be they travel agents or educated professionals. It took more than a decade for the witch hunt of Muslim businessmen and the denial of licences and passports to them to diminish. One thing was lost forever after March 12, 1993 - the trust that the community had in the police. Their brutality, first during the riots and then the bomb blasts - when women were brought to the police station and their menfolk stripped before them - created a chasm that is still to be bridged. Muslims grumble that their lanes are full of khabris, but these are good only to settle personal scores or to rat on petty criminals. The intelligence that would enable the police to gauge the community’s mood has become an elusive commodity. Witness the cluelessness about the Azad Maidan violence last year. Fortunately, the enmity between the two communities is a long-forgotten chapter, notwithstanding the ghettoization that has intensified after the riots. One mentions the riots because the 1993 blasts and the ’92-93 riots are inextricably linked as effect and cause. The verdict in the blasts case may have come, but is the story of those grim years really over? Especially when those who destroyed Babri Masjid roam free.
Courtesy : http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/2/201303222013032204070887594330bfa/The-story-with-half-an-ending.html?pageno=2

1993 Mumbai serial blasts case: SC upholds death sentence of Yakub Memon, calls him mastermind of terror strike

NEW DELHI March 21, 2013 : The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the death sentence of Yakub Abdul Razzak Memon in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case. The apex court said Yakub, younger brother of Tiger Memon, was the mastermind of the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts. The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of 10 other accused to life imprisonment. The court observed that the other 10 accused were mere 'arrows in the hands of archers in the shape of Yakub, Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim'. The SC said though these 10 parked explosive laden vehicles at places in Mumbai, they were mere pawns and deserved life sentence. The apex court severely criticized Pakistan for training and arming terrorists, who caused mayhem in Mumbai. SC said Pakistan's ISI was singularly responsible for training the accused and equipping them to cause the bomb blasts in Mumbai. Islamabad owes an explanation not only to India but also to the entire world for the terror strike, the SC said condemning Pakistan's role. SC also severely criticized Mumbai police, custom department officials and coast guards for failing to check the transportation of sophisticated weapons and RDX into India. Their greed and lack of honesty and integrity not only resulted in huge loss of lives but also caused a serious set back to India's economy, the SC said. The apex court awarded five years sentence to Yusuf Nulwala. The court allowed Samire Hingora to come out of prison as he had already served 6 and a half years, the sentence it imposed on him. A bench of Justice PS Sathasivam and BS Chauhan read out in one and a half hours the excerpts of the vouminous judgement. As many as 257 people were killed and 713 injured in the serial blasts that rocked 12 locations in Mumbai on March 12, 1993. Property worth Rs 30 crore was damaged in the terror strike.  The fishermen's colony at Mahim Causeway, Bombay Stock Exchange, Zaveri Bazar, Plaza Cinema in Dadar, Century Bazaar in Worli, Hotel Sea Rock, Sahar Airport, Air India building, Hotel Juhu Centaur and a petrol pump opposite the Sena Bhavan were some of the places that were targeted. According to the CBI, fugitive don Dawood Ibrahim, along with Pakistant's ISI, engineered the blasts, and Tiger Memon and his brother Ayub were the main conspirators. Courtesy : http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-03-21/india/37902045_1_mumbai-serial-blasts-tiger-memon-apex-court

Man gets death for rape, murder in Odisha

Bhubaneswar, March 26, 2013 : A man has been sentenced to death in Odisha for the rape and murder of an elderly woman two years ago. District and Sessions Judge KC Mohapatra Monday awarded the sentence to Mishro Parija at the district headquarters town of Nabarangpur, 560 km from here, after examining 18 witnesses, government lawyer Prakash Mishra said. According to him, 25-year-old Parija raped the 60-year-old woman in a cattle grazing field near Kesarbeda village of the district Feb 27, 2011. He then throttled her to death. Villagers caught him when he was shifting the dead body to a local cremation ground. He was arrested and charged based on a complaint from the victim's son. Parija is the second man in Odisha to have received a death sentence this week for rape and murder. On March 22, a court in Jharsuguda, about 370 km from here, had awarded capital punishment to a 22 year-old man who was found guilty of murdering a minor girl and having sex with her body in October 2009. Courtesy : http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Bhubaneswar/Man-gets-death-for-rape-murder-in-Odisha/Article1-1032918.aspx

Orphanage founder gets death sentence for rape and murder

MUMBAI March 22, 2013: A sessions court on Thursday awarded death sentence to the founder of Panvel's Kalyani Mahila and Bal Seva Sanstha for killing a minor. Ramchandra Karanjule (53) also received two life sentences and other sentences for raping and physically abusing disabled inmates at the state-licenced private shelter. Five other convicts received various sentences for their role in the rape and torture of disabled inmates, many of them minors. "Accused number one (Karanjule) is sentenced to death and he shall be hanged till he is dead subject to confirmation by the honourable Bombay high court," the judge said. Among the other convicts, Deepak Kasbe (35) was sentenced to life in jail for gang rape; Prakash Khadke (36), a salaried employee of the shelter, to life imprisonment for rape; the then caretaker Parvati Mavle (61) and the then superintendent Sonali Badade (22) to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment each for abetting gang rape; journalist Nanabhau Karanjule to two years in jail for assault on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. "While holding a quasi-parental position, the accused (Karanjule) has in fact breached the trust and fiduciary relationship with inmates of the home to satisfy his insatiable lust," the judge said. Referring to the minor for whose murder Karanjule was convicted, the judge said, "We have to imagine the condition of a severe mentally challenged mute orphan... who is severely anaemic with 3.3 haemoglobin, with many complications since two to three months and is deteriorating day by day and is given beating and is not taken to hospital till she reaches the death bed. Can we not say it is diabolic?" The judge said such a case fell in the rarest-of-rare category. "He has no right to live in society," the judge said. "He is a menace to society." Karanjule and Kasbe had made five victims sleep in a row so they could commit gang rape, the judge said. "This shocks the judicial conscience," the judge said. "The girls were not normal. They were physically and mentally challenged. They were kept under duress and coercion." Referring to Mavle and Badade, the judge said: "Two untrained unqualified staff were kept to look after the girls. One of them was an illiterate old lady. The other was a young girl, who herself has illicit relations with the accused (Karanjule)." About the shelter, the judge said: "The only objective of the orphanage was to satisfy lust and to earn money." After the verdict, Karanjule told the media: "I am confused and do not know what am I supposed to do. The court has ordered that I should be hanged till death, but the fact remains that I am innocent." Courtesy : http://m.timesofindia.com/city/mumbai/Orphanage-founder-gets-death-sentence-for-rape-and-murder/articleshow/19118651.cms

Two sentenced to death for Bhiwani honour killing

Rohtak, March 01, 2013 : A Bhiwani fast-track court sentenced two murder convicts to death penalty on Thursday in an honour killing case. Naresh (23) and Subhash (30), residents of Ranila village under Dadri subdivision of Bhiwani district,  had thrashed to death their widowed aunts Shakuntala (40) and Suman (35) on April 17, 2011. During the interrogation, the convicts confessed that their aunts were involved in illicit relations and they had killed them for the sake of the's fammily honour. During the interrogation, the convicts confessed that their aunts were involved in illicit relations and they had killed them for the sake of the family's honour. The duo had dragged both women out of their house and beaten them up with sticks at the post office chowk in the village. Later, the victims had succumbed to their injuries. The duo had dragged both the women out of their house beaten them up with sticks at the post office chowk in the village. Later, the victims had succumbed to their injuries. On the complaint of panch Kailash Kumar, a case was registered under sections 302 (murder), 449 (trespass), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Bond police station. Naresh and Subhash were arrested on April 19, 2011. As per the police, Naresh had been booked on the charges of rape and kidnapping in 2007. A Bhiwani court had sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment and he was out on bail when the double murder was committed. Holding Naresh and Subhash guilty on the basis of evidence presented by the police, the court of additional district judge Sarita Gupta also imposed a fine of Rs. 27,000 on both convicts. Courtesy : http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Haryana/Two-sentenced-to-death-for-Bhiwani-honour-killing/Article1-1019594.aspx

Man gets death for rape & murder (after a nine day trial)

Bhopal March 15, 2013: The court of the Bhopal District and Sessions judge sentenced Nandkishore Walmiki, 50, to death on Thursday. He was held guilty of rape and murder of an 8- yr- old girl, whose dismembered body was found in TT Nagar area of the city on February 4. The judgment came 36 days after the discovery of the crime and the trial was completed in 9 working days. The incident had rocked the entire city. In a jam- packed courtroom, DJ Sushma Khosla delivered the judgment in the presence of accused Nandkishore. He was convicted under section 302 and 376 section of the IPC. However, Nandkishore told the court just before the judgment that he was innocent and was implicated in the case. Within the last 20 days, this is the second case in which capital punishment has been awarded by district judge. On February 22, Khosla had sentenced Dilip Bankar, accused of rape and murder of a 7- year- old girl in 2005, to death. Nandkishore lived in Ahata Rustam Khan locality, where the family of the deceased too lived. The victim along with her younger brother, Chunnu and mother Sapna had gone to Dussehra Maidan on February 3, from where she went missing. Her mutilated body was recovered the next morning after her family lodged a missing person report with TT Nagar police. Anup Maurya, a resident of Ashoka Garden, who was running a book stall in the ‘ Bhopal Utsav’ fair underway in the nearby Dushhera ground, informed the police that a stray dog was carrying human limbs into the bushes in the open space across the road from 45 Bungalows locality. He informed SI Santosh Sharma who called the girl’s father Narendra Dhuria and other relatives who identified the body as that of victim. Blood samples were sent to Forensic laboratory, Sagar. Along with investigation officer Santosh Sharma, SI GBS Sengar and Govindpura TI SKS Tomar were also put on the case for speedy investigations. Police had filed a charge sheet with a list of 55 witnesses on February 27. Finally 30 Prosecution witnesses deposed in the day- today trial. None of witnesses turned hostile in the case. There was no defence witness. Prosecutor Rajendra Giri said, “ District Judge Sushma Khosla delivered judgment before the accused. The judgment will go to the High Court for confirmation of death penalty within next couple of days.” Courtesy : http://freepressjournal.in/man-gets-death-for-rape-murder/

High Court commutes death penalty to life term

Express News Service - KOCHI 07th March 2013 : The Kerala High Court on Wednesday set aside the capital punishment awarded to a carpenter who killed his wife. A Division Bench comprising Justice K T Sankaran and Justice M L Joseph Francis passed the order while considering the petition filed by Ramachandran, of Malappuram, seeking a review of the death punishment awarded by the Manjeri Additional Sessions Court. The Bench awarded life imprisonment to the accused. It is held that life imprisonment is a rule and death sentence is an exception. The court observed that there is nothing on record to show that he has a criminal background. The accused is not dangerous to society. “His act was heinous. But it will not come under the ‘rarest of rare cases’. So the accused does not need to be eliminated from society,” the Bench observed. Courtesy : http://newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/article1491390.ece

HC commutes youth’s death penalty to life term

New Delhi, February 23, 2013 The Delhi High Court has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence given by a trial court to a youth for killing his father five years ago and chopping of his body into pieces as a sacrifice to a deity. The youth committed this act in the belief that it would ward off his marital troubles. “The unusual nature of facts needs to be considered to decide the sentence. This is perhaps the kind of crime which the Supreme Court referred to as having been committed by one morally-mentally retarded or disordered person.Taking these into consideration he cannot be termed as an “irredeemable murderer” who is beyond the pale of reformation,” said a bench headed by justice S Ravindra Bhat. The court was hearing an appeal filed by one Jitender against the death sentence awarded to him by a trial court in January 2011. Significantly, the court directed that in all cases of serious crimes like murder and homicide where the accused are alleged to have indulged in unusual behavior, indicative of mental disorder or disturbance, the magistrate taking cognisance of the offence alleged shall refer the accused for suitable medical check-up. This will be done to evaluate the possibility of his or her being of a mental condition which might entitle him or her to avail the defence of insanity. The trial court had awarded capital punishment to Jitender terming his crime as the “rarest of rare” warranting nothing less than the gallows.”The brutal murder of the father followed by the mutilation of his body, all in the name of human sacrifice, to appease the deity for his own welfare, adds a grave dimension to this case and leaves no scope for escape from the conclusion that it is a case falling in the category of rarest of rare, meriting the extreme penalty,” the court had said. Jitender had told the court that he had a dream in which the deity asked him for a human sacrifice to ward off his troubles with his wife. Courtesy : http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/HC-commutes-youth-s-death-penalty-to-life-term/Article1-1016496.aspx

HC commutes death penalty to 30-yr life term

Nagpur, February 01, 2013 : The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has commuted the death sentence of a 38-year-old man, who had brutally killed his wife and a teenaged daughter in April 2011, to life imprisonment for 30 years. A Bombay High Court division bench of Justices A P Lavande and Arun Choudhary of Bombay High Court here yesterday did not confirm the death sentence, awarded by first adhoc Additional Sessions Judge K L Vyas to accused - Prakash Vinayak Shinganapure. The HC awarded Shinganapure life imprisonment for a minimum of 30 years. Prakash had killed his wife Pranita and 13-year-old daughter Shreya on April 7, 2011 at their home in a city locality. The accused stabbed his wife as many as 62 times and daughter 45 times with a knife and also inflected about 20 injuries on himself in an attempt to end his life, over poor financial conditions. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on the convict. Courtesy : http://zeenews.india.com/news/maharashtra/hc-commutes-death-penalty-to-30-yr-life-term_826340.html

Bombay HC Confirms Death Penalty for a Rape Accused

Mumbai | Mar 08, 2013 Terming the rape and murder of a "defenseless" minor girl as the "ultimate insult to womanhood", the Bombay High Court today confirmed the death penalty awarded to a 22-year-old youth after it held that the case fell under the "rarest of rare" category. A division bench of Justices P V Hardas and A M Thipsay confirmed the death penalty of Raju Jagdish Paswan, hailing from Bihar, for raping and murdering a nine-year-old girl in June 2010 in Sangli district of Maharashtra. "After evaluating the mitigating and aggravating circumstances we are of the opinion that this case falls under the category of rarest of rare. We have no hesitation in confirming the death penalty," the court said. "The accused has committed an offence of rape and murder on a defenseless child which is the ultimate insult to womanhood. The offence has been committed in a most gruesome and grotesque manner which is not only repulsive but also shocks the collective conscience of the society," it added. The bench further observed that the accused will be a "menace to the society and no possibility to reform". The court also held that the accused committed the offence not on a spur of the moment but with due deliberation and planning. "The accused knew the daily routine of the victim child and had been stalking her. The accused had not only satisfied his carnal lust but had also murdered her apprehending that she would identify him later," the court said. "Children are considered to be soft targets as they offer little or no resistance. The accused exhibited total brutality and inhuman conduct. Even after committing the crime the accused has not shown any remorse," the court said. The incident dates back to June 21, 2010 when the victim had gone missing from her house in Bedag village in Sangli district. The victim's father, a labourer in a farm, had lodged a missing complaint. During investigation the police learnt that the victim was last seen with the accused who used to live in the neighbouring house. According to prosecution, when the accused was detained and interrogated he revealed that he had raped the girl and murdered her and then dumped her body in a well. The high court further held that the accused had shown no compunction in committing this gruesome act on a victim who was aged merely nine years. The sessions court in November last year while awarding Paswan the death penalty had observed that the accused had committed a heinous crime of raping an innocent child and that it was a "cold blooded murder".Courtesy : http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=791864

Tihar officials refuse RTI query on Afzal Guru

March 2, 2013 LUCKNOW: Can disclosure of certain details on Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, hanged at New Delhi's Tihar Jail "affect relations with a foreign state"? The prison department certainly thinks so. It would "pre-judicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence," the Tihar Jail said in a reply to a Right to Information (RTI) query by Urvashi Sharma of Lucknow. The prison headquarters (office of the director general of prisons) has cited various clauses which could jeopardize the relations of India with foreign countries if details like the copy of the 'black warrant' of Afzal Guru, copies of communication sent by ministry of home affairs after taking a decision on the mercy petition, and the total expenses, item wise on keeping Afzal in jail. Sharma had also sought copies of documents or letters generated, sent and received by the prison department during the process of deciding the place of burial. Sharma had also asked for the names of the executioner (s), list of people present during the burial of Guru's dead body and any photographs that "could be fraught with security concerns". But, she was taken aback by the curt response of the prison department stonewalling "innocent queries" like expenses incurred on his stay in Tihar Jail. "This is completely unacceptable. Why can they not part with communications leading to the rejection of his mercy petition and subsequent hanging," Sharma asked while speaking to IANS. She claimed had the prison department responded positively, several "conspiracy theories and human rights queries would have been satiated". "There has been several protests regarding the secretive circumstances Afzal Guru was hanged in and the quiet burial...(the) prison department of Tihar Jail and the union government must come clean on this matter," the RTI activist said, adding she was exploring options to file a review petition. Afzal Guru, a resident of Sopore in Jammu and Kashmir was convicted for plotting the terror attack on parliament on Dec 13, 2001 and was hanged Feb 9 at Tihar Jail after President Pranab Mukherjee rejected his mercy petition. Courtesy : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Tihar-officials-refuse-RTI-query-on-Afzal-Guru/articleshow/18763637.cms

SC to decide if review pleas can be heard in open court

New Delhi : Staying the execution of a murder case convict, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 6, 2013) decided to adjudicate whether the review petitions by all death row convicts should be heard in an open court and not by the judges in chambers. A Bench of Justices P Sathasivam and J S Khehar also agreed to delve on a contention if a decision on whether a convict should be condemned to death or not should be taken only by a five-judge Bench, as recommended by the Law Commission.The court has issued notices to the Centre and the Supreme Court Registry on a petition by G Sundarrajan alias Sunder, who has demanded appropriate amendments to the court rules for allowing hearing of review pleas of death row convicts in open court and also implementation of the Law Commission's recommendation in this regard. Courtesy : http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sc-to-decide-if-review-pleas-can-be-heard-in-open-court/1084087/1

UN chief reaffirms call for moratorium on death penalty

25 February 2013 – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today reiterated his call for a global moratorium on applying the death penalty, stressing the United Nations’ long history of opposing the practice and the growing momentum among the international community to permanently end it. “A global moratorium is a crucial stepping stone towards full worldwide abolition,” Mr. Ban said in a message delivered by the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, Kyung-wha Kang.
“Capital punishment is inconsistent with the mission of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person,” Ms. Kang read, during an event at the Human Rights Council in Geneva organized by the International Commission against the Death Penalty, an independent body opposed to capital punishment. The UN General Assembly first voted on a moratorium in 2007, and again in December 2012 with the support of 111 countries, 41 against and 34 abstentions. The resolution called for a progressive restriction on the use of capital punishment and eliminating it entirely for felons below the age of 18 and pregnant women. Although not legally binding, the UN moratorium on executions carries moral and political weight.
“The United Nations system has long advocated the abolition of the death penalty. International and hybrid tribunals supported by the UN do not provide for capital punishment, nor does the International Criminal Court,” Mr. Ban’s message noted.
Approximately150 countries have either abolished the death penalty or do not practice it, but Mr. Ban noted that some recently reinstated the practice.
Thousands of people are executed each year, “often in violation of international standards, such as the right to fair trial and due process,” Mr. Ban said.
He added that the death penalty is still used for a wide range of crimes that do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” and based on information that is not transparent. In addition, sometimes “wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice” can occur in well-functioning legal systems that sentence and execute persons who have been ultimately proven innocent, Mr. Ban said. Courtesy : http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44217&Cr=death+penalty&Cr1=#.UTxh8zf7DzY

Right's group condemns Afzal's hanging

New Delhi, February 13 The Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN (WGHR), a coalition of 14 human rights organisations and independent experts, today denounced the execution of Afzal Guru on February 9 and demanded abolition of capital punishment by India.
The WGHR also condemned the indiscriminate and arbitrary use of state power for imposing capital punishment to Guru covertly, denying his family a last visit and refusing to hand over his body to his family. The group said death penalty embodied the idea of retribution which is as violent as the offence for which one is convicted, and is contrary to all civilised ideals of criminology and constitutionalism. During the second inter-governmental peer review of India's human rights (also known as the Universal Periodic Review) in May 2012, the UN Human Rights Council made 169 recommendations to the Government of India out of which 11 related to the abolition of death penalty and the adoption of an official moratorium on death penalty. None of these were accepted by India. "We are concerned against India aligning itself with the small minority of nations which favour death penalty. On November 21, 2012 a resolution was passed by the UN General Assembly's Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) on 'Moratorium on the use of the death penalty' by a record 110 votes but India voted against the motion," the coalition said in a statement. Courtesy : http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130214/nation.htm#7

Working Group of Human Rights (in India and the UN) Press Release 13th February 2013 - Capital Punishment not a deterrent : WGHR condemns the execution of Afzal Guru; Demands the abolishment of Death Penalty - http://www.wghr.org/pdf/WGHR%20Press%20Release%20on%20Afzal%20Guru%20Execution.pdf

India refused 11 recommendations made by UN Human Rights Council on the abolition of death penalty

NEW DELHI: In May last year, the UN Human Rights Council had made 11 recommendations related to the abolition of death penalty and the adoption of an official moratorium on death penalty to the Government of India but none of these recommendations were accepted. While no reason was given for turning down the recommendations, data generated by the Ministry of Home Affairs of India also supports the argument that death penalty has not been and is not a deterrent for murder. The murder rate in India has declined consistently in India over the last 20 years, despite the slowdown in the execution of death sentences since 1980.
In a press statement released by the Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN (WGHR), a coalition of fourteen human rights organizations and independent experts, the organization has condemned "the indiscriminate and arbitrary use of state power for imposing capital punishment to Afzal Guru covertly, not allowing his family a last visit and not handing over his body to his family." WGHR stated that that death penalty embodies the idea of retribution which is as violent as the offence for which one is convicted, and is contrary to all civilized ideals of criminology and constitutionalism. "While none of the 11 recommendations made by the UNHCR were accepted by the Government of India, they nevertheless represent the growing concern in the international community against the continuation of death penalty in India... studies show that there is no scientific or empirical basis for claiming that death penalty has a deterrent effect on the incidence of crime," said the statement. Noted human rights expert Suhas Chakma, director of Asian Centre for Human Rights and a member of the WGHR said, "There is no law in the country which differentiates among the death-row convict to selectively fast track execution of certain persons. It is clear that the Government of India does not follow the inviolable principle of equality and non-discrimination with respect to the death-row convicts and the malafide intention of the Government stands exposed from the failure to inform the family and handover the dead body to the family." "What makes matters worse is that we have a President of the country who appears to be trigger happy and ready to rapidly comply with the government's wishes even if his actions are contrary to the humanistic traditions of Indian civilisation", said Miloon Kothari, convenor of WGHR and former Special Rapporteur of the UNHCR. Courtesy : http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-02-16/india/37132591_1_death-penalty-death-row-convicts-human-rights

1,455 death penalties awarded in India since 2001

NEW DELHI: Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) in its report "The State of Death Penalty in India 2013" stated that as per the records of the National Crimes Records Bureau (NCRB), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, a total of 1,455 convicts or an average of 132.27 convicts per year were given death penalty during 2001 to 2011. During the same period, the highest number of death penalty was imposed in Uttar Pradesh (370) followed by Bihar (132), Maharashtra (125), Karnataka and Tamil Nadu (95 each), Madhya Pradesh (87), Jharkhand (81), West Bengal (79), Delhi (71), Gujarat (57), Rajasthan (38), Kerala (34), Odisha (33), Haryana (31), Assam (21), Jammu and Kashmir (20), Punjab (19), Chhattisgarh (18), Uttaranchal (16), Andhra Pradesh (8), Meghalaya (6), Chandigarh and Daman and Diu (4 each), Manipur and Himachal Pradesh (3 each), Tripura and Pondichery (2 each) and Goa (1). In the rest of the States (Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim) and Union Territories (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Lakswadweep), no death penalty was imposed. "This implies that on average one convict is awarded death penalty in less than every third day in India. The rarest of rare case doctrine for application of death penalty has become routine. Death penalty is no longer the exception but the rule," said Suhas Chakma, coordinator, National Campaign for Abolition of Death Penalty in India and Director of ACHR. Thousands of convicts remain on death row. This is established by the fact that during 2001 to 2011, sentences for 4,321 persons were commuted from death penalty to life imprisonment with the highest number of commutation in Delhi (2462) followed by Uttar Pradesh (458), Bihar (343), Jharkhand (300), Maharashtra (175), West Bengal (98), Assam (97), Odisha (68), Madhya Pradesh (62), Uttaranchal (46), Rajasthan (33), Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Chhattisgarh (24 each), Haryana and Kerala (23 each), Jammu and Kashmir (18). ACHR called for abolition of death penalty stating that "The execution of Nathuram Vinayak Godse for assassination of none other than the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, has not acted as a deterrent against assassination of many prominent political leaders including former prime ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, former Punjab chief minister Beant Singh, MP Lalit Maken and many other prominent political leaders." There is no scientific or empirical basis to suggest that death penalty acts as a deterrent against any crime. Though no execution had been carried out since the execution of Dhananjoy Chatterjee on August 14, 2004, the number of murder cases have been reducing. According to the National Crimes Record Bureau, in 2001 a total of 36,202 murder cases were registered in India. Though the population of India increased from 1.028 billion in 2001 to 1.21 billion in 2011, the murder cases indeed reduced to 34,305 in 2011. Commenting on the execution of Afzal Guru, ACHR stated that India must assuage the sentiments of the Afzal Guru's family members who have effectively been not informed about the impending execution on February 9, 2013. The state itself must not be flouting or circumvents the rules as it erodes the belief in the rule of law. Guru was hanged out of the queue and was denied the right to appeal against the rejection of mercy petition. "The interventions of the Supreme Court against rejection of mercy petition of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, the Guwahati high court against rejection of mercy petition of Mahendra Nath Das and the Madras high court against rejection of mercy petitions of Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan have established that the decision of the President of India on mercy petitions is further subject to judicial review and this opportunity to appeal has been denied to Afzal Guru," said Chakma. On the recent rejection of mercy petitions of four accused namely Gnanprakasham, Simon, Meesekar Madaiah and Bilavendran who were sentenced to death by the Supreme Court in January 2004 in connection with the killing of 21 policemen in a landmine blast at Palar in Karnataka in 1993, Chakma said: "It appears that the Government of India in its attempt to address political fallout of the botched up execution of Afzal Guru and the expressed position of the members of the UPA Government on death penalty in certain cases will carry out further executions of death row convicts not connected with political sensitivities." According to ACHR, India must follow its own civilisational values. Mythologies of India are full of stories about criminals being reformed. Valmiki, the author of the epic Ramayana, was a highway robber known as Ratnakara until he came under the influence of Maharshi Narada to leave the paths of sin. Similarly, according to Buddhist literature, Daku Angulimala (dacoit who wears finger necklace/ garland of fingers) was a ruthless killer who was redeemed by a sincere conversion to Buddhism. India as the land of Valmiki, Lord Buddha and Gandhi must follow its own civilisational values and take effective measures to join the countries which have abandoned retributive justice system and abolished death penalty. Courtesy : http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-02-15/india/37118208_1_death-penalty-achr-murder-cases

Asian Centre for Human Rights - The State of Death Penalty in India Report 2013, 14th February 2013 - http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/IndiaDeathPenaltyReport2013.pdf

Indian Rape Debate : Why death penalty is no solution By Ananth Guruswamy, Director of Amnesty International in India

New Delhi (CNN) -- The tragic case of the 23-year old woman who was brutally attacked, raped and left for dead by six men in New Delhi on December 16 has highlighted the unacceptable reality millions of women in India are facing. Violence against women is endemic -- more than 220,000 cases of violent crimes against women were reported in 2011 according to official statistics from the Indian government, with the actual number likely to be much higher. If there has been a silver lining to this horrendous case, it has been the enormous outcry from Indian society. What started as student-led protests in New Delhi has grown to encompass Indians from all walks of life and from the whole political spectrum. Tens of thousands have taken to the streets with the clear message that something has to change, and that women should no longer have to live in fear. But amid the many reasonable and constructive calls on the authorities to address the situation, there is unfortunately a growing chorus of voices calling for the six alleged perpetrators to be executed, or even for mandatory death sentence in cases of sexual violence. Five of the six suspects were formally charged in New Delhi on Thursday, with the authorities investigating whether the sixth suspect is under 18 and a juvenile. The five are expected to be charged with several offences including murder, which is punishable by death under Indian law. The anger felt towards the suspects is completely understandable, as is the desire to impose stricter laws around sexual violence to ensure that what happened in Delhi in December never happens again. But imposing the death penalty would just perpetuate the cycle of violence. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, regardless of the circumstances or the nature of the crime. It is the ultimate cruel and inhuman punishment, and a violation of a fundamental human right -- the right to life. There is no evidence to suggest that the threat of execution works as a special deterrent. This is reflected in a clear global trend moving towards the abolition of the death penalty. Today, 140 countries in the world have abolished executions in law or practice. Up until November 21, 2012, when the lone surviving gunman from the 2008 November Mumbai attacks, Ajmal Kasab was hanged, India had not carried out a single execution for almost eight years. Kasab's killing meant India took a significant step backwards and joined the minority of countries in the world that are still executing. With hundreds of prisoners still on death row in India, this is a key moment for the country and its use of the death penalty. The Indian authorities must not let the Kasab, execution and the outrage around the Delhi rape trigger a resumption of executions on a larger scale. What India needs now is not revenge, but to address the many underlying issues that are perpetuating endemic violence against women. The laws and the justice system must be reformed, and the definition of rape, which is currently far from adequate, should be amended. The woefully low conviction rate for these crimes must also be addressed, which today only perpetuates a culture of impunity. Imposing the death penalty for sexual assault cases would likely only worsen this situation, as judges would hesitate to give such an extreme sentence, and the legal process would become even lengthier and more complicated. The Indian police force has to be better trained to deal with survivors of sexual violence, and there is a need to develop support systems for survivors. Many women are reluctant to report crimes, fearing humiliation and degrading treatment by the police, or the social stigma that comes from society at large. There are also still serious systematic failures in the Indian justice system that raise questions about its efficiency. To even begin to talk about a method of punishment until these issues have been addressed is to seriously jump the gun. This sentiment has been echoed by many, including U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay, who has called for legal reform while cautioning against the use of the death penalty. After a year in which both Afghanistan and Pakistan resumed executions after relatively long moratoriums, India now has an opportunity to show real leadership on a key human rights issue in the region. There is no question that the country's women deserve much better legal protection, but the death penalty is not the answer. Courtesy : http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/03/opinion/india-rape-amnesty/index.html