Former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal dies at 73

As a judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Sabharwal delivered several important judgments dealing with constitutional matters. 

New Delhi | Updated: July 4, 2015 11:30 am

Former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal passed away on Friday at the age of 73. He had suffered a brain stroke in 2014 and was not keeping well since.

Born on January 14, 1942, Justice Sabharwal mainly practised in civil and constitutional cases. He was elevated as an additional judge of the Delhi High Court in 1986 and became its permanent judge in April 1987. He later went on to become the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court in 1999, from where he was elevated as a judge of the apex court on January 28, 2000, the day of the golden jubilee of Supreme Court.

Justice Sabharwal was appointed as the CJI in 2005 and retired after a term of 14 months. After his appointment as the CJI, he had favoured abolition of the death penalty. He had said that while the statute prescribed for the capital sentence in the rarest of rare cases, he personally opined that capital punishment should be erased from the penal code.

As a judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Sabharwal delivered several important judgments dealing with constitutional matters, including the verdict in January 2006, that held the dissolution of Bihar Assembly as illegal and unconstitutional. In 2007, Justice Sabharwal, while heading a nine-judge constitution bench, ruled that there could not be any blanket immunity from judicial review of laws inserted in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.

The judgment held that all laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, shall be open to be challenged in court if they violate the fundamental rights. Justice Sabharwal also headed a bench monitoring river inter-linking projects in the country. He was also part of the bench that had cancelled petrol pump licences granted under the discretionary quota of ministers. He dealt with the politically-sensitive JMM bribery case, medical scam cases and cases concerning unauthorised construction in the Capital.

The former CJI had set in motion the process of sealing properties in designated residential areas of Delhi which were being used for commercial purposes. His presence on this bench, however, courted some controversy after it was later known that his two sons had links with the real estate business in Delhi.

Source: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/former-cji-y-k-sabharwal-dies-at-73/ [last accessed 06.07.2015]

Madhya Pradesh: Death sentence for man convicted of murder of wife, daughter

Press Trust of India | Morena (MP) 

July 1, 2015 Last Updated at 20:28 IST

A court in the district today awarded death sentence to a man after finding him guilty of hacking his wife and daughter to death last year. Describing the act as cruel, Ambah tehsil Additional Sessions Judge P C Gupta sentenced Anil Sakhwar (30), a resident of Manpur village, to death for the murder of his wife Manisha (28) and daughter Anushka (2). 

Additional public prosecutor Ramniwas Tomar told PTI that Anil was not getting along well with Manisha for some time. On February 7, 2014, following a quarrel, he attacked his wife and the daughter with an axe. While Anushka died on the way to the hospital, Manisha succumbed during the treatment, said Tomar. Anil had fled from the spot but was later arrested.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/death-sentence-for-man-convicted-of-murder-of-wife-daughter-115070101127_1.html [last accessed 03.07.2015]

Madhya Pradesh: Man’s death penalty changed to life term

TNN | Jun 19, 2015, 12.31PM IST

INDORE: Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh high court on Thursday converted death sentence of a man, convicted in gruesome rape and murder of 9-year-old, to life imprisonment. 

Jagdish Mehar, 30, resident of Pallapur village of Rajgargh district of Madhya Pradesh, was in January 2015, convicted by session court for kidnapping, rape and murder of 9-year-old girl and awarded capital punishment under various sections of IPC and Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act. Advocates Abhijeet Dube and Rekha Shrivastava said this is the first time in recent times, when HC has reduced the punishment, in such a sensitive case. 

Jagdish had kidnapped the minor from his village and raped her on March 9, 2014. On March 13, 2014, a decomposed body of victim was recovered by police, and after investigation, Jagdish was arrested and booked. Sessions court held Jagdish guilty of murder, rape and kidnapping. As per rule, capital punishment awarded by session court is tabled before high court for approval. 

In high court, double bench of Justices PK Jaiswal and JK Jain set aside the capital punishment for murder, and their order observed that it was not murder but culpable homicide, so he could not be awarded capital punishment. HC upheld charges of rape and kidnapping and approved life sentence.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/indore/Mans-death-penalty-changed-to-life-term/articleshow/47731693.cms [last accessed 03.07.2015]

Source: http://sikhsiyasat.net/2015/06/12/wife-meets-prof-bhullar-in-guru-nanak-hospital-amritsar/ [last accessed on 03.07.2015]

Court orders husband’s death in Oxytown murder

TNN | Jun 12, 2015, 04.53AM IST

KOLKATA: An Alipore court has sentenced the mastermind in the Oxytown murder case to death. The court ordered life imprisonment for his conduit who played a role in executing the murder plan. Alipore court judge, Siddhartha Kanjilal, told mastermind and victim's husband Avik Ghosh on Thursday: "You have killed your wife deliberately. You didn't care for your children even. I am convinced that you masterminded the murder. I sentence you to death." Avik tried to argue with the judge that he has worked in responsible posts and always led a clean life while pleading innocence. 

The judge then turned to his conduit Somnath Tanti. "You have committed crime for the first time. Taking this into consideration, I sentence you for life. Try to lead the rest of your life in a civilized manner," the judge said. Lawyers of the convicts will move the higher court challenging the Alipore court order. 

The murder dates back to September 2010 at Oxytown in Behala's Sarsuna area when housewife Mousumi Ghosh was killed under mysterious circumstances. Her father alleged husband Avik was putting pressure on her daughter for a divorce. With Mousumi refusing to give a divorce, her husband, an engineer posted in Bihar, hired 'supari' killers who came to their Oxytown house when Mousumi was alone and executed the murder plan. Her husband had made a doctor's appointment for his mother to take her away from home. 

The 30-year old woman was found lying in the room with her throat slit while her domestic help, Parul, succumbed to a critical head injury. The killers had spared Mousumi's two-year old son Avirup who witnessed the murder. Her husband tried to project the incident as a robbery attempt gone futile. 

The Alipore court earlier acquitted three of Somnath's conduits — Safiq Ahmed Khan, Sadaf Pervez and Sheikh Israfin — for "lack of evidence". The public prosecutor had presented 31 witnesses before the court, including Thakurpukur police's investigating officer Joydeep Banerjee. The area is now under Kolkata Police's Sarsuna police station. "Based on evidence, the two accused were sentenced under IPC sections 302/109/396 and 120 (B)," said a source. He said that it was the failure of the jewellers, who had bought the stolen ornaments of Mousumi in 2010, in identifying three of Somnath's conduits that they managed to walk free. 

Soon after Mousumi married Avik in 2006, the latter started putting pressure on her for dowry. So much so that Mousumi's father Sankar Dutta put it on record in his police complaint. Sources said Mousumi was Avik's second wife. He had also allegedly tortured his first wife. Later, police arrested three youths — Somnath Tanti, Sadaf Parvez and Safique Ahmed Khan — from Thakurpukur in November 2010 as a laptop went missing from the murder spot and it was lying with them. Police had stated in the chargesheet that the trio murdered Mousumi and Parul. Somnath knew Avik because the latter's father used to work in this house as a mason, police stated in the chargesheet. So, Mousumi knew Somnath and had opened the door to let him in on the day of the murder.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Court-orders-husbands-death-in-Oxytown-murder/articleshow/47636586.cms [last accessed 03.07.2015]

Kolkota - Death sentence to husband for murdering wife

Press Trust of India | Kolkata 

June 11, 2015 Last Updated at 18:22 IST

A man was today awarded death sentence for mudering his wife and their maid at their residence in the city about five years ago by hiring a contract killer. 

The contract killer Somnath Tanti was awarded life imprisonment by the Alipore Judges Court. 

Judge Siddhartha Kanjilal, delivering the judgement, said it was a rarest of the rare case as the the two little children of the couple Abhik Ghosh and Moushumi Ghosh were deprived of their mother's love at an early age when needed most and the murder was pre-planned. 

The judge said that he had no other option but to pass the death sentence against the accused. 

To Ghosh's repeated pleadings before the judge that he did not commit the crime, the judge said that the court had enough evidence to come to the conclusion that he had planned the murder of both the persons. 

The same court had held Ghosh and Tanti guilty two days back. 

Ghosh had a dispute with his wife and he had hired a contract killer to murder her. The maid was killed as she was a witness to the incident.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/death-sentence-to-husband-for-murdering-wife-115061100930_1.html [last accessed 03.07.2015]

ACHR’s comparative study uncovers flaws in Indian system of awarding death sentence

Submitted by TwoCircles.net on 28 May 2015 - 11:20pm

By A Mirsab, TwoCircles.net,

Mumbai: In an attempt to advocate abolition of death penalty in India, the Asian Centre For Human Rights (ACHR) has, in a report, criticized the arbitrariness in awarding death sentences by the Indian judiciary and has categorically pinpointed flaws in sentencing death under the name of ‘conscience’.

The 77 page report released on May 25 ‘India: Death in the name of conscience’ examines the imposition of death penalty to convicts in the name of “collective conscience of the society”, which is often interpreted as the “judicial conscience.”

The report is being published as part of the ACHR’s “National Campaign for Abolition of Death Penalty in India” – a project funded by the European Commission under the European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy – the European Union’s programme that aims to promote and support human rights and democracy worldwide.

ACHR report front page

The report specifically examines (i) manufacturing of ‘conscience’ to justify death sentence, (ii) the use of ‘conscience’ in the judgements imposing death penalty which have already been declared as per incuriam by the Supreme Court, (iii) how ‘conscience’, “which varies from judge to judge depending upon his attitudes and approaches, his predilections and prejudices, his habits of mind and thought and in short all that goes with the expression social philosophy,” plays out as to whether an accused charged with an offence punishable with death shall live or die, and (iv) inconsistency of the Indian judiciary while considering the factors and circumstances to determine between life and death in a capital punishment case.

The report is prepared after meticulous study of 48 Supreme Court judgements on death penalty pronounced by two distinguished former judges of the Supreme Court viz. Justice M B Shah and Justice Arijit Pasayat, who are currently serving respectively as chairperson and vice chairperson of the Special Investigation Team on Black Money appointed by the Supreme Court of India, to illustrate how ‘conscience’ of individual judges play out the ‘collective conscience’ and/or ‘judicial conscience’.

Per incuriam is a Latin term which means “through lack of care”. It refers to a judgement of a court that has been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgement which would have been relevant. The significance of a judgement having been decided per incuriam is that it does not then have to be followed as precedent by a lower court.

Out of the 33 death penalty cases adjudicated by Justice Arijit Pasayat examined by Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR), Justice Pasayat

(i) confirmed death sentence in 15 cases, including four cases in which lesser sentences were enhanced to death sentence and two cases in which acquittal by the High Courts were turned to death sentence,

(ii) upheld acquittal in eight cases,

(iii) commuted death sentence in seven cases and

(iv) remitted three cases back to the High Courts to once again decide on quantum of sentence as death penalty had not been imposed by the High Courts.

Interestingly, out of the 16 cases in which death penalty was confirmed by Justice Pasayat, five cases have since been declared as per incuriam by the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, Justice M B Shah did not confirm death sentence in any of the 15 cases of death penalty adjudicated by him. He rather commuted death sentence in 12 cases, did not enhance life imprisonment into death penalty in any case, did not alter acquittal by the High Courts into death penalty in any case, did not remit back any case to the High Courts on the quantum of sentence and did not deliver a single judgement, which was declared as per incuriam. He acquitted convicts in three cases out of which he passed dissenting judgements against imposition of death penalty in two cases.

Comparison tables

By comparing the reasoning of these two judges while dealing with death sentences, the report tries to prove how in India death sentence has become ‘judge-centric’.

The report says, “Whether an accused shall live or die has become essentially a matter of luck,” adding, similar disputation at other place: “It is troubling as it makes the life and death of a person dependent on sophisticated judicial lottery. These inconsistencies stand exposed on perusal and analysis of various judgements of the Supreme Court”.

Countering the main ground of ‘conscience’ in awarding death sentence, it says, “The reliance on ‘conscience’ for imposition of death penalty is deeply flawed, fraught with malafides at every stage, and is often manufactured through scapegoating of the dispensable i.e. the poor, socially disadvantaged and those accused of terror offences.” It added further, “They are often unable to defend themselves in all stages, most notably at the stage of the trial held under intense local social pressure, media trial and hostile environment.”

In regards with the terrorism related offences, the report says justice system has developed a clear precedent whereby the investigating agencies and prosecutors present evidence gathered under special laws such as TADA in trials conducted under the IPC to extract maximum punishment and the Courts embolden by ‘collective conscience’ have accepted the same without any qualm.

“This is nothing but abuse of the law driven by the desire for retribution in order to satisfy the so called ‘collective conscience’ rather than meeting the basic requirements of justice,” it speaks out for terror offences convictions.

In addition, it says, some crimes such as the ones against women and children are so gruesome and become politically significant in the light of massive public outrage that it almost becomes indispensable for the state/prosecution to find the guilty, even if it means tweaking justice, to assuage public anger.

As evidence it relies upon the documentary released in November 2013 on Arivu, in which the former Superintendent of Police of the CBI P V Thiagarajan admitted that he had manipulated Arivu’s confessional statement in order to join the missing links in the narrative of the conspiracy in order to secure convictions.

Listing much arbitrariness in various judgments dealing with death penality, it says Arbitrariness has been one of the grounds for declaring many laws as unconstitutional across the world and death sentences have been abolished on this ground alone in other countries such as South Africa.

“The situation and factors that were taken into consideration by the South African Constitutional Court for determining arbitrariness is not dissimilar to India – the mirror reflection is possibly worse in India. If death penalty can be declared unconstitutional on the ground of arbitrariness in South Africa, there is no reason why it should be constitutional in India,” the report concludes.

Asian Centre for Human Rights endeavors to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Asian region by undertaking range of activities. Details of their activities can be find at its website www.achrweb.org.

Source: http://twocircles.net/2015may28/1432835422.html#.VWwX4M-qpHy [last accessed 01.06.2015]

Bihar: Court gives death sentence to rapist

Press Trust of India | Gaya (Bihar) 

May 28, 2015 Last Updated at 21:22 IST

A district court today awarded death sentence to a 28-year-old youth for rape-cum murder of a minor girl three years ago. 

Sanjay Kumar, the convicted, had lured a 7-year-old girl to a field at Daler village in the Medical police station area of Gaya district, raped her and then killed her for fear of being caught. 

The incident had occurred on March 10, 2012.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/court-gives-death-sentence-to-rapist-115052801700_1.html [last accessed 01.06.2015]

Death sentence: How the ropes used in EXECUTION are tested?

Dailybhaskar.com | May 28, 2015, 11:10AM IST

New Delhi: Supreme Court has said that convicts can't be hanged secretly and hurriedly. The apex court has ruled that the execution of death sentence cannot be carried out in an arbitrary, hurried and secret manner without allowing death row convicts all legal remedies and meet family members.

A lot of efforts are made to ensure that execution is carried out in accordance with the law. It is highly important the rope used in the execution is of top quality and tested before the execution.

Here are the details given in 'Consultation paper on mode of execution of death sentence' by Law Commission of India: 

A Manilla rope one inch in diameter shall be used for executions. At least two such ropes in serviceable condition shall be maintained at every jail where executions are liable to take place.

The rope should be 19 feet in length, well twisted, and fully stretched. It should be of equal thickness, capable of passing readily through the noose-ring and sufficiently strong to bear a strain of 280 lbs. with a 7 foot drop.

Source: http://daily.bhaskar.com/news/NAT-TOP-death-sentence-supreme-court-on-death-sentence-rights-of-prisoner-in-india-5006208-PHO.html [last accessed 29.05.2015]

Dharna in Hyderabad againt Morsi death sentence, today 4-6 PM

Thursday, 28 May 2015

Hyderabad, May 28:

Egypt is one of the five great civilizations of the world. The great pyramids, the light house of Alexandria are among the Seven Wonders of the World. Egypt became independent after the withdrawal of British forces in the year 1953.Since its independence, till the year 2011, the State was ruled by dictators and had become the land of conflicts and wars.

The dictators bred corruption and poverty, abused power in their tenure. Therefore the unrest and uprising started in the year 2010, which ultimately threw out the tyrant Hosni Mubarak on 11th Feb, 2011. Dr. Mohammed Morsi was the first civilian president, democratically elected on June 2012 with share of 51.7% of casted votes and winning with a margin of over 10 lakhs Votes. Dr. Mohammed Morsi has done his Doctorate in material science and was professor in university of California. He was elected as the Member of Parliament for the year 2000-2005 and become the chairperson of freedom and justice party of Egypt. President Mohammed Morsi visited India from 18th to 21st March, 2013 and signed many trade agreements. Trade between India & Egypt increased by 30% because of these agreements. The Military dictators never tolerated the rise of civilian power and therefore a military coup was done on 3rd July, 2013 unseating the first democratically elected civilian president.

The Conflict between dictatorship and democracy did not end even after the military coup. On 21 April, 2015 the dictator’s court sentenced Morsi to 20 years in prison on certain baseless allegations and again the same court sentenced Dr. Mohammed Morsi to Death. The death sentence to Mr. Mohammed Morsi is not just a penalty to an individual but the verdict of the court can be considered as the death of the democracy. We cannot allow the dictators to overpower the democratic forces. We cannot allow the puppets of imperialist and capitalist forces to crush the people’s movement in any part of the world therefore it is the time to unite the democratic forces and the people’s movement of the world, to come together against the imperialist, capitalist and anti-people forces and their puppets.

A protest and Dharna in Hyderabad is being organized on 28th May 2015 at Indra Park between 4pm to 6pm by all civil society organizations, political organizations and rights activists to show solidarity with Dr. Mohammed Morsi and protest against the death sentence given to him.

Source: http://www.siasat.com/english/news/dharna-hyderabad-againt-morsi-death-sentence-today-4-6-pm (last accessed 29.05.2015)

Courts cannot give death sentence in haste: Supreme Court

PTI New Delhi, May 28, 2015 | UPDATED 10:47 IST

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that right to life does not end with the confirmation of the death sentence, observing that the basis to the right to dignity also extends to the death row convicts.

The apex court said this while it quashed the execution warrants of a young woman and her lover, convicted for killing seven members of her family including a 10-month-old baby in Uttar Pradesh in 2008, noting that it was issued "in haste" by giving a go-by to mandatory guidelines.

Supreme Court India

The court said the Sessions Judge of Amroha issued the warrants for execution of death sentence on May 21 "in haste", just six days after confirmation of conviction and capital punishment, without waiting for mandatory 30 days to allow the convicts to avail judicial remedy of filing petitions for a review of the May 15 judgement.

The convicts, Shabnam and her lover Saleem, could also approach the Uttar Pradesh Governor with mercy petitions after exhausting the legal remedies, it noted. "We find that the death warrant was signed by the Sessions Judge in haste without waiting for the convicts to exhaust the available legal remedies," a bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and U U Lait said while noting that there were judgements of both the apex court and the Allahabad High Court which mandated the authorities to follow certain guidelines to protect the "dignity" of the convicts.

"Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not end with the confirmation of the death sentence. The basis to the right to dignity also extends to the death row convicts. Therefore, the sentence of death has to be executed with total dignity. "That is why there are many judgements mandating the manner in which the death sentence has to be executed," the bench said and added that, "therefore the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court for execution of death sentence is in consonance with Article 21".

Among the mandatory guidelines are that the death-row convicts have the right to meet their family members. The guidelines are intended to make the execution least painful. "We, therefore, direct the respondents (authorities) to follow the procedure and guidelines laid down in the judgements of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court. "We set aside the warrants issued by the Sessions Judge on May 21 for the execution of the death sentence," the bench said.
Source: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/supreme-court-death-sentence-right-to-life-dignity/1/440676.html (last accessed 29.05.2015)

India: Death in the name of conscience

ACHR PRESS RELEASE

"India: Death in the name of conscience” released today examines the imposition of death penalty to convicts in the name of 'collective conscience of the society' which is often interpreted as the ‘judicial conscience’. The report specifically examines (i) manufacturing of 'conscience' to justify death sentence, (ii) the use of 'conscience' in the judgements imposing death penalty which have already been declared as per incuriam by the Supreme Court, (iii) how 'conscience', “which varies from judge to judge depending upon his attitudes and approaches, his predilections and prejudices, his habits of mind and thought and in short all that goes with the expression social philosophy”, plays out as to whether an accused charged with an offence punishable with death shall live or die, and (iv) inconsitency of the Indian judiciary while considering the factors and circumstances to determine between life and death in a capital punishment case. 

In the post Bachan Singh judgement which upheld constitutional validity of death penalty in 1980, there has not been a single judgement including those declared as per incuriam in which ‘collective conscience’ of the society and/or ‘judicial conscience’ have not been used to justify imposition of death penalty.

The reliance on ‘conscience’ for imposition of death penalty is deeply flawed, fraught with malafides at every stage, and is often manufactured through scapegoating of the dispensable i.e. the poor, socially disadvantaged and those accused of terror offences. They are often unable to defend themselves in all stages, most notably at the stage of the trial held under intense local social pressure, media trial and hostile environment. For terror-related offences, it will not be an understatement to assert that a clear precedent has been set in India wherein justice system is tweaked by the desire for retribution in order to satisfy the socalled ‘collective conscience’ rather than meeting the basic requirements of justice. In addition, some crimes such as the ones against women and children are so gruesome and become politically significant in the light of massive public outrage that it almost becomes indispensable for the State/prosecution to find the guilty, even if it means tweaking justice, to assuage public anger. That the public anger, as shown against the Nithari killings and Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, is equally directed against the failure of the State and the system as much against the crimes and the criminals, is often forgotten.

The report examines 48 judgements on death penalty pronounced by two distinguished former judges of the Supreme Court viz. Justice M B Shah and Justice Arijit Pasayat, who are currently serving respectively as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Special Investigation Team on Black Money appointed by the Supreme Court of India, to illustrate how ‘conscience’ of individual judges play out the ‘collective conscience’ and/or ‘judicial conscience’. 

Out of the 33 death penalty cases adjudicated by Justice Arijit Pasayat examined by Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR), Justice Pasayat (i) confirmed death sentence in 15 cases including 4 cases in which lesser sentences were enhanced to death sentence and two cases in which acquittal by the High Courts were turned to death sentence, (ii) upheld acquittal in 8 cases, (iii) commuted death sentence in 7 cases and (iv) remitted 3 cases back to the High Courts to once again decide on quantum of sentence as death penalty had not been imposed by the High Courts. It is pertinent to mention that out of the 16 cases in which death penalty were confirmed by Justice Pasayat, 5 cases have since been declared as per incuriam by the Supreme Court. 

On the other hand, Justice M B Shah did not confirm death sentence in any of the 15 cases of death penalty adjudicated by him. He rather commuted death sentence in 12 cases, did not enhance life imprisonment into death penalty in any case, did not alter acquittal by the High Courts into death penalty in any case, did not remit back any case to the High Courts on the quantum of sentence and did not deliver a single judgement which was declared as per incuriam. He acquitted convicts in three cases out of which he passed dissenting judgements against imposition of death penalty in two cases. 

Out of these 48 cases, three cases i.e. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Anr, Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar etc and Lehna v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court benches comprised Justice A Pasayat and Justice M B Shah along with Justice B N Agrawal. In Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and Krishna Mochi & Ors, the majority view comprising Justice Pasayat and Justice Agrawal confirmed death sentence on all the accused in both the cases. Justice Shah, on the other hand, acquitted Bhullar and altered the death sentence on Krishna Mochi, Nanhe Lal Mochi and Bir Kuer Paswan to life imprisonment and further acquitted Dharmendra Singh. However, there was no disagreement between Justice Shah and Justice Pasayat in commutation of death sentence in Lehna v. State of Haryana. 

Though consideration of the aggravating circumstances relating to the crime and mitigating circumstances relating to the criminal as enunciated in BachanSingh judgement cannot be deduced to a zero sum game, the inconsistency in consideration of these circumstances by the judiciary is all pervasive. These inconsistencies stand exposed on perusal and analysis of various judgements of the Supreme Court, inter alia, (i) relating to consideration of convict’s young age for commutation of death penalty, (ii) the benefit of possible reformation or rehabilitation as a ground for commutation of death penalty, (iii) acquittal or life sentence awarded by the High Courts as a ground for commutation, and (iv) circumstantial evidence as a mitigating factor for commutation of death sentence. 

Arbitrariness was the ground for declaring death penalty provided under Section 277 of the Criminal Procedure Act of South Africa as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the case of State v. Makwanyano & Anr. The situation and factors that were taken into consideration by the South African Constitutional Court for determining arbitrariness is not dissimilar to India – the mirror reflection is possibly worse in India. If death penalty can be declared unconstitutional on the ground of arbitrariness in South Africa, there is no reason why it should be constitutional in India.[Ends]

Source: http://www.achrweb.org/press/2015/IND03-2015.html [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Explained: In the Supreme Court, some questions of Life and Death

SC will hear Monday petitions challenging death warrants issued against Amroha couple Shabnam and Salim, who killed 7 of her family in 2008. 

Written by Utkarsh Anand | Published on:May 27, 2015 12:53 am

UTKARSH ANAND examines the laws, rules and issues around the death penalty, and the circumstances warranting execution in India.

Which crimes entail capital punishment in India?

Grave offences such as murder, rape with injuries that may result in the death of a victim and a repeat offender, waging war against the State, and terrorism-related offences causing death are some major crimes punishable with death under the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, there are provisions under The Arms Act, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, The Air Force Act, The Army Act and The Navy Act wherein capital punishment is prescribed as one of the punishments for serious offences. The now-repealed Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) also contained provisions for death sentence.

What has the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutional validity of the death sentence?

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ensures the Fundamental Right to life and liberty for all persons. It adds no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This has been legally construed to mean if there is a procedure, which is fair and valid, then the state by framing a law can deprive a person of his life.

While the central government has consistently maintained it would keep the death penalty in the statute books to act as a deterrent, and for those who are a threat to society, the Supreme Court too has upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment in “rarest of rare” cases. In Jagmohan Singh vs State of UP (1973), then in Rajendra Prasad vs State of UP (1979), and finally in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980), the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional validity of the death penalty. It said that if capital punishment is provided in the law and the procedure is a fair, just and reasonable one, the death sentence can be awarded to a convict. This will, however, only be in the “rarest of rare” cases, and the courts should render “special reasons” while sending a person to the gallows.

What would constitute a “rarest of rare” case?

The principles as to what would constitute the “rarest of rare” has been laid down by the top court in the landmark judgment in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980). Bachan Singh formulated certain broad illustrative guidelines and said it should be given only when the option of awarding the sentence of life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed”. It was left completely left upon the court’s discretion to reach this conclusion. However, the apex court also laid down the principle of weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a particular case has to be drawn to ascertain whether justice will not be done if any punishment less than the death sentence is awarded. Two prime questions, the top court held, may be asked and answered. First, is there something uncommon about the crime which renders the sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? Second, are there circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose the death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offenders?

What has been the Supreme Court’s view on mandatory death penalty?

The Supreme Court has always said that the death sentence should be given rarely. In Mithu vs State of Punjab (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional. It struck down Section 303 in the IPC, which entailed a mandatory death sentence for a person who commits murder while serving a life term in another case. The Supreme Court ruled Section 303 violated Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life) since an unreasonable distinction was sought to be made between two classes of murderes. It said all murders would come under the ambit of Section 302, where a court would have the discretion to award life term or death sentence.

Similarly, the Supreme Court ruled in State of Punjab vs Dalbir Singh in 2012 that mandatory death penalty as punishment for crimes under Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959, was unconstitutional. The government moved a Bill to amend the Act, which is currently pending. There are some other subsequent legislation prescribing the mandatory death penalty in drug cases, but the Supreme Court has not yet struck down the penalty as unconstitutional. A pertinent provision in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is currently under scrutiny of the apex court.

What are the avenues available to a death-row convict?

After a trial court awards the death penalty, the sentence requires to be confirmed by a High Court. The sentence shall not be executed till the time the High Court confirms it, either after deciding the appeal filed by the convict, or until the period allowed for preferring an appeal has expired. If the High Court confirms the death penalty and it is also upheld by the Supreme Court, a convict can file a review petition and a curative petition, if the review petition is nixed, for reconsideration of the judgment.

A Constitution Bench ruled last year that a review petition by a death-row convict will be heard by a three-judge bench in open court. Such cases were earlier being heard by two-judge benches in the judges’ chamber. A curative petition is still heard in judges’ chambers. Opening another avenue, the Supreme Court, by yet another path-breaking verdict in 2014, ruled that unexplained delay in execution was a ground for commutation of death penalty, and an inmate, his or her kin, or even a public-spirited citizen could file a writ petition seeking such commutation.

Does the executive have a role in clemency?

Yes. If the Supreme Court turns down the appeal against capital punishment, a condemned prison can submit a mercy petition to the President of India and the Governor of the State. Under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, the President and Governors have the power “to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence”. This power was without any conditions until the last year’s verdict by the Supreme Court, which held that judicial clemency could be granted on the ground of inordinate delay even after a mercy petition is rejected.

How is the execution of death sentence carried out in India?

Execution is carried out by two modes, namely hanging by the neck till death, and being executed by firing squad. The Code of Criminal Procedure calls for the method of execution to be hanging. It states: “When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that the person be hanged by the neck till the person is dead.” In Deena vs Union of India (1993), the Supreme Court adjudicated upon whether the execution of death penalty by hanging by rope is constitutional. It held the method prescribed under the CrPC was valid. Death by shooting is contemplated under the Army Act, Navy Act and Air Force Act. They provide for the discretion of the Court Martial to either provide for the execution of the death sentence by hanging or by being shot to death.

Can an order of execution be challenged in a court of law?

Yes. The procedure for carrying out the execution must also fulfill certain conditions as stipulated by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India (2014), and by the Allahabad High Court in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights vs Union of India (2015). The guidelines hold that a death-row prisoner must get free legal aid for drafting a mercy petition and, if it is rejected, an intimation to the prisoner and his family is imperative. A minimum 14 days’ notice for execution must be given to let him “prepare himself mentally for execution, to make his peace with god, prepare his will and settle other earthly affairs”, besides also allowing him “to have a last and final meeting with his family members.” An execution can be stopped owing to a convict’s physical or mental ill health, the top court has held. The death warrants are issued by the trial court.

In the cases of Shabnam and Salim, the validity of the death warrants have been challenged, contending that the warrants did not specify any date of execution. Further, the convicts still had the legal remedies of filing review and curative petitions, apart from moving clemency petitions.

When was the last execution carried out in India?

The last execution to take place in India was in February 2013, the hanging of Afzal Guru who was convicted of plotting the 2001 attack on India’s Parliament. 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab was hanged in November 2012. Prior to these, the last execution was in 2004, when Dhananjoy Chatterjee was executed for the murder and rape of a 14-year old girl. This was the country’s first execution since 1995, when Auto Shankar, who was convicted of six murders in Tamil Nadu, was executed. Therefore, while the courts sentenced more than 1,400 persons to death between 2001 to 2011, only four have been hanged since 1995. Many of these cases are under the consideration of the Supreme Court and the President for clemency. According to data compiled by the NGO Amnesty International, Indian courts handed down at least 64 death sentences in 2014, but no executions took place. A report by the Death Penalty Research Project of the National Law University in Delhi indicated that at least 270 people were on death row after exhausting all remedies available to them under the law.

Source: http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-in-the-supreme-court-some-questions-of-life-and-death/ [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Lucknow: 2 persons get death for triple murders

TNN | May 27, 2015, 01.09AM IST

LUCKNOW: A Basti court on Tuesday awarded death sentence to two persons after finding them guilty of committing triple murders in 2011. The murders were a result of a dispute related to then panchayat elections, police said.

Three persons -- Pankaj Pandey, Shiv Prakash and Ratnakar -- were at a tea stall in Keswapur village under Paikulia police station of Basti on September 26, 2011, when four miscreants came on two motorbikes and opened fire on them. Pankaj died on the spot, while Shiv Prakash and Ratnakar died later in the hospital.

A named FIR was lodged against four persons. Two accused, Dharmendra and Surya Prakash, were convicted in the case, while other two were acquitted by the court lack of evidence. On Tuesday, the court awarded death penalty to Dharmendra and Surya Prakash.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/2-persons-get-death-for-triple-murders/articleshow/47436140.cms [last accessed 28.05.2015]

ACHR report examines use of 'collective conscience' in death penalties

May 25, 5:40 pm

New Delhi, May 25 (ANI): The Asian Centre for Human Rights ( ACHR) has released a report titled "India: Death in the name of conscience", which examines the imposition of death penalty to convicts in the name of 'collective conscience of the society' which is often interpreted as the 'judicial conscience'.

The report specifically examines the manufacturing of 'conscience' to justify death sentence and the use of the 'conscience' in the judgements imposing death penalty which have already been declared as per incuriam by the Supreme Court. It also seeks to examine how 'conscience', which varies from judge to judge depending upon his attitudes and approaches, plays out as to decide whether an accused shall live or die.

It also highlights the inconsistency of the Indian judiciary while considering the factors and circumstances to determine between life and death in a capital punishment case. The report states that the reliance on 'conscience' for imposition of death penalty is deeply flawed, fraught with malafides at every stage, and is often manufactured through scapegoating of the dispensable.

It further states that some crimes such as the ones against women and children are so gruesome and become politically significant in the light of massive public outrage that it almost becomes indispensable for the State or the prosecution to find the guilty, even if it means tweaking justice, to assuage public anger. The report cites Nithari killings and Nirbhaya gang rape and says that the public anger is equally directed against the failure of the State and the system as much against the crimes and the criminals, which according to the report is forgotten.

The report examines 48 judgements on death penalty pronounced by two distinguished former judges of the Supreme Court, Justice M B Shah and Justice Arijit Pasayat. Both the Judges are currently serving as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Special Investigation Team on Black Money appointed by the Supreme Court of India respectively.

The report attempts to illustrate how 'conscience' of individual judges play out the 'collective conscience' or 'judicial conscience'. (ANI)

Source: http://www.aninews.in/newsdetail2/story217050/achr-report-examines-use-of-039-collective-conscience-039-in-death-penalties.html [last accessed 25.05.2015]

SC stays execution of death sentence of couple who killed 7

Last Updated: Monday, May 25, 2015 - 12:26

New Delhi: Supreme Court today stayed the execution of death sentence of a young woman and her lover convicted for killing seven members of her family, including a 10-month-old baby, in Uttar Pradesh in 2008.

A bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and U U Lalit issued notice to UP government seeking its response and posted the matter for further hearing on May 27. The warrant for execution of the death sentence of Shabnam and her lover Saleem was issued on May 21. The Supreme Court on May 1 had upheld the conviction and death penalty of the couple and later on May 15 delivered a detailed judgement for dismissing the appeal filed by the convicts.

Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Shabnam, asked the court that the matter be heard before any final decision is taken for executing the death penalty. In 2013, Allahabad High Court had upheld the death sentence to the couple awarded by a sessions court in 2010. Saleem and Shabnam were having an affair and wanted to get married but their relationship met with stiff opposition from the woman's family.

On April 15, 2008, Shabnam's entire family, including a 10-month-old baby, was murdered and the woman initially pretended that her house in Amroha district of UP was attacked by unidentified assailants. It came to light during investigation that she had abetted Saleem in the crime as she made her family members drink milk laced with sedatives before the attack and thereafter herself throttled her infant nephew.

Source: http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/sc-stays-execution-of-death-sentence-of-couple-who-killed-7_1601109.html [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Her crime a blow to society's faith in educated daughter as caregiver: SC

Updated: May 18, 2015 17:42 IST

LEGAL CORRESPONDENT

Calling it an abhorrent crime of parricide shaking the Indian society's aspirations of an educated daughter as a caregiver more responsible than a son, the Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty of a young teacher and her lover for the murder of her aged parents and five other family members.

The case dealt with the multiple murders committed by Shabnam, a teacher in Uttar Pradesh, in 2008.

She had incapacitated her entire family by sedating them. Then had held their heads while her lover slit their throats, one after the other. The Supreme Court judgment quotes the prosecution saying that she strangled her 10-month-old nephew with her own hands. After the deed, she pretended to lie down unconscious near her dead father till the neighbours broke into the house.

The court confirmed that she wanted to do away with her family, who was opposed to her relationship, and keep the family property to herself. A trial court convicted and sentenced the duo to death in July 2008. The decision was upheld by the Allahabad High Court in April 2013.

In its recent judgment on their appeals, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu said the fact that an educated teacher from a civilised family committed this crime and showed no remorse by itself makes it a 'rarest of rare' crime deserving the death penalty.

“Such a deed as parricide would be sufficiently appalling were the perpetrator and the victims are uneducated and backward, but it gains a ghastly illumination from the descent, moral upbringing, and elegant respectful living of the educated family where the father and daughter are both teachers,” Chief Justice Dattu said.

“Here is a case in which Shabnam, who has been brought up in an educated and independent environment by her family and was respectfully employed as a Shikshamitra (teacher) at the school, influenced by the love and lust of her paramour has committed this brutal parricide exterminating seven lives including that of an innocent child,” the judgment said.

Justifying its decision to uphold her death sentence, the apex court distinguished Shabnam's crime triggered intense indignation in the community as it shattered the modern Indian parents' faith that their educated daughter would care for them in their old age.

“The modern era, led by the dawn of education, no longer recognises the stereotype that a parent would want a son so that they have someone to look after them and support them in their old age. Now, in an educated and civilised society, a daughter plays a multifaceted and indispensible role in the family, especially towards her parents,” the court said.

The court said the accused “wrench the heart of our society where family is an institution of love and trust”. It concluded that the couple's cold-blooded depravity leaves little “little likelihood of reform”.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/death-penalty-for-teacher-who-killed-parents-and-family/article7219753.ece [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Supreme Court slaps death sentence on woman

May 16, 2015 - J. Venkatesan | 

New Delhi

In a new twist to sentencing policy, the Supreme Court on Friday held that no leniency can be shown by courts in awarding death sentence only on the ground that the accused in a brutal killing is a woman. The sentencing policy must be proportionate to the crime committed and the sentence must be the same for man and woman, held a three-judge bench of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Justices S.A. Bobde and Arun Mishra, while confirming a death sentence awarded to a woman and her paramour for killing seven members of a family (the case was briefly reported on April 30 when the bench reserved orders).

Writing the judgement, the CJI said, “The Indian legal system today does not differentiate between a son and a daughter — they have equal rights and duties. Indian culture has been witness to for centuries, that daughters dutifully bear the burden of being the care-givers for her parents, even more than a son. Our experience has reflected that an adult daughter places greater emphasis on their relationships with their parents, and when those relationships go awry, it takes a worse toll on the adult daughters than the adult sons.” The bench said, “The principle that when the offence is gruesome and was committed in a calculated and diabolical manner, the age of the accused may not be a relevant factor. Death penalty is not proportional if the law’s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of youth and immaturity. This, however, does not seem to be the case herein. The appellant-accused persons’ preparedness, active involvement. It said “Here is a case where the daughter, appellant-accused Shabnam, who has been brought up in an educated and independent environment by her family and was respectfully employed as a Shikshamitra (teacher) at the school, influenced by the love and lust of her paramour has committed this brutal parricide exterminating seven lives including that of an innocent child.”

It said “Of all the crimes that shock the souls of men, none has ever been held in greater abhorrence than parricide, which is by all odds the most complete and terrible inversion, not alone of human nature but of brute instinct. Such a deed would be sufficiently appalling were the perpetrator and the victims are uneducated and backward, but it gains a ghastly illumination from the descent, moral upbringing, and elegant respectful living of the educated family where the father and daughter are both teachers.

Dismissing the appeals against a Allahabad High Court verdict confirming a trial court’s order, the bench said “the crime is committed in the most cruel and inhuman manner which is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical and revolting. Therefore, as the instant case requires us to award a punishment that is graduated and proportioned to the crime, we have reached the inescapable conclusion that the extreme culpability of both the appellants-accused makes them the most deserving for death penalty.”

Source: http://www.asianage.com/india/supreme-court-slaps-death-sentence-woman-430 [last accessed 28.05.2015]

SC awards death penalty to woman and her lover

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | May 16, 2015, 07.48AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday imposed death sentences on a woman and her lover who wiped out her entire family -- parents, two brothers, sister-in-law and two minors - after heavily sedating them to remove opposition to their love affair and also to grab the family property. 

Supreme Court on Friday imposed death sentences on a woman and her lover who wiped out her entire family.

The apex court, which is generally lenient in awarding sentence to women convicts and of late has been increasingly reluctant to impose capital punishment, was shocked by the brutality of the crime. 

A bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justices S A Bobde and Arun Mishra dismissed the appeals of Shabnam and her lover Saleem and upheld the death penalty imposed on them by a UP trial court which was confirmed by the Allahabad HC. 

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Dattu said, "Here is a case where the daughter Shabnam, who has been brought up in an educated and independent environment by her family and was respectfully employed as a teacher, influenced by the love and lust of her paramour has committed this brutal parricide (act of killing one's father, mother or other close relative), exterminating seven lives including that of a 10-month-old innocent child." 

Shabnam, who was pregnant at the time of crime, had conspired with her unemployed lover Saleem and had served tea heavily laced with sedatives to her family members on the night of April 14, 2008. Saleem entered the house at Bahman Garhi in Amroha and the two slit the throats of the seven family members. She strangulated the 10-month-old child. 

The CJI said, "Not only did she forget her love and duty towards her family, but also perpetrated the multiple homicides in her own house so as to fulfill her desire to be with the co-accused Saleem and grab the property leaving no heir but herself. Both the appellants wrench the heart of our society where family is an institution of love and trust, which they have disrespected and corrupted for the sake of their love affair." 

Amicus curiae Dushyant Parashar pleaded with the court that Shabnam, who was pregnant at the time of crime, was now the mother of a five-year-old child, who would be orphaned if both she and Saleem were awarded death penalty. He had pleaded for life sentence for the couple citing their young age. 

The court rejected the plea. It said Indian society has experienced through centuries that daughters were more caring than sons towards their parents and feel the pinch more when the relationship with parents go awry. 

It said a daughter was a care-giver and a supporter, a gentle hand and responsible voice, an embodiment of the cherished values of our society and in whom a parent placed blind faith and trust. The bench said society abhorred parricide as a person trusted blindly could not be seen to murder those who trusted him/her. 

Parricide assumes indescribable ghastliness when a teacher-daughter murders her teacher-father and her entire family, the bench said. "It is the combined concoction of all aggravating circumstances, that is, victims of the crime, motive for commission of murders, manner of execution, magnitude of crime and remorseless attitude of the appellants-accused that stands before us in this case," the bench said and rejected the plea for award of life sentence to the convicts. 

Past sentences

* Renuka Shinde and her step-sister Seema Gavit were convicted in 2001 for kidnapping 13 children, forcing them to join a gang of thieves and murdering at least five of them. Shinde, 45, and Gavit, 39, were found guilty of kidnapping the 13 children in Maharashtra. They were initially accused of murdering nine of their victims, but prosecutors were only able to prove that they killed five. The Supreme Court upheld their sentence in 2006. The President rejected their mercy pleas last year. 

* Sonia and her husband were awarded death penalty by the SC in 2007 for murdering her father, mother, sister, step-brother and the entire family including three young children - one 45 days old, another two-and-a-half-year-old and the third four years old to resist her father's decision to give the property to her stepbrother. 

* Shabnam is the third to be awarded death penalty in the last decade.

SC confirms death for Pune duo in rape, murder of BPO employee

Court says accused ‘a menace to the society, showed no regret’ 

Written by Utkarsh Anand | New Delhi | Published on:May 10, 2015 1:52 am

Describing them as a “menace to the society,” the Supreme Court on Friday sentenced to death a cab driver and his male friend for “brutally” raping and murdering an “innocent and helpless” BPO employee in Pune in 2007.

The Supreme Court awarded the death sentence to the accused in a 2007 rape case of a BPO employee in Pune

The 22-year-old woman was traveling in her company’s pick-up cab on November 1, 2007, when the driver Purushottam Borate and his friend Pradeep Kokate raped and killer her viciously.

“They did not show any regret, sorrow or repentance at any point of time during the commission of the heinous offence, nor thereafter, rather did they act in a disturbingly normal manner after commission of crime,” said a bench led by Chief Justice of India H L Dattu. Confirming the sentence awarded to the duo by the trial court and the Bombay High Court, the bench said that the offence was so meticulously and carefully planned and was executed with sheer brutality and apathy for humanity that in every probability they have the potency to commit similar offence in future. “It is clear that both the accused persons have been proved to be a menace to society which strongly negates the probability that they can be reformed or rehabilitated. 

The act shocks and repulses the collective conscience of the community and the court,” said the bench while rejecting the defence counsel’s plea to commute the death penalty to life term. The duo was heard by the top court only on the point of sentence. The Court drew a parallel with the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee, who was executed for the murder following a rape of a teenage girl in 1990 at her apartment residence in Bhowanipur in West Bengal. It thus noted: “The gruesome act of raping a victim who had reposed her trust in the accused followed by a cold-blooded and brutal murder of the said victim coupled with the calculated and remorseless conduct of the accused persons after the commission of the offence, we cannot resist from concluding that the depravity of the appellants’ offence would attract no lesser sentence than the death penalty.” 

The Court further underscored that it had to take into account the impact of the crime on the community and particularly women working in the night shifts at Pune, considered as a hub of Information Technology Centre. Stating that criminal sentencing has become a matter of concern in view of the rise in violent crimes against women, the bench said that punishments must act as a deterrent. “There are a shockingly large number of cases where the sentence of punishment awarded to the accused is not in proportion to the gravity and magnitude of the offence thereby encouraging the criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffers, by weakening the system’s credibility. 

The object of sentencing policy should be to see that the crime does not go unpunished and the victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that justice has been done to it,” it emphasised. The Court added: “The society today has been infected with a lawlessness that has gravely undermined social order. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which may be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, in this context, the vital function that this Court is required to discharge is to mould the sentencing system to meet this challenge.”

Source: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-sentences-cab-driver-friend-to-death-for-murder-and-rape-of-bpo-employee/2/ [last accessed 28.05.2015]

A Muslim 'terror accused' tells his account of frame-up and torture

Zia Haq, Hindustan Times, New Delhi| 

Updated: May 09, 2015 16:52 IST

Abdul Qayyum's autobiography reveals a shocking case intrigue, ruse, torture and devious framing, swerving the spotlight on some of India's questionable anti-terror operations.

At a simple ceremony on Friday, Abdul Qayyum--a madrassa teacher from Gujarat--unveiled in New Delhi a book the Gujarat police wouldn't allow him to launch in his home state. Judged by its cover, its unpolished English and utter lack of flair, it’s an unremarkable book at first sight. Brave the dead-eyed prose, and the reader is left with a rare, haunting account of a presumed terrorist on death row declared innocent in the end. Astounding still is how innocent Muslims can be witch-hunted, framed and put on trial on terror charges.

Qayyum was arrested in the 2002 Akshardham temple siege in Gandhinagar, in which 33 were killed when terrorists stormed the temple. In 2006, a Gujarat POTA court sentenced three of the six accused, including Qayyum, to death. That sentence was upheld in 2010 by the Gujarat high court. It then came before the Supreme Court, where the case began to unravel like a George Pelecanos thriller. On May 16, 2014, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi swept the BJP to a historic verdict, another extraordinary verdict was being delivered by the top court: all six accused in the case, including Qayyum, were found innocent.

Qayyum lived to tell his story: '11 Years Behind Bars', an autobiography that reveals a shocking case of intrigue, ruse, torture and devious framing, swerving the spotlight on some of India's questionable anti-terror operations. There isn’t a doubt that terrorists did kill innocent devotees in that famous temple in a commando-like strike, Qayyum says. “Some people may do it.” “But the war on terror targets the entire community. I am living proof. I can only thank Allah and honest Supreme Court,” he says.

To many Muslims, the war on terror often looks like a war on the community itself. While some have been found guilty on terror charges, many others have been acquitted in a series of cases. Qayyum’s account is not just to uncover a dangerous overzeal of police that prompts them to frame innocent people. It is the sinister anti-Muslim communal mindset that makes police act against innocent Muslims, he says. “Every time, they beat me, I would say Allah-u-Akbar. What else would a believing Muslim say? But they would abuse me for remembering my God”. Such accusations of torture by one man under arrest cannot of course be independently corroborated.

But beyond the moving story of hopelessness and human agony, it is the subterfuge of the system by police that is dreadful and proven on record. DG Vanzara, the former deputy inspector-general of Gujarat police and the former head of Gujarat’s Anti-Terrorism Squad, claimed to have solved the case within a day. As the head of the force, Vanzara was widely known for his precision as an anti-terror operation specialist. But Vanzara had to be in jail between 2007 to 2015 for a possibly questionable role in such shootouts.

Vanzara cracked the Akshardham attack speedily – it was plot hatched by Pakistani terror outfits, the Jaish-e-Mohammad and the Lashkar-e-Taiba as well as Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence. Local Muslims like Qayyum ultimately helped pull it off, the police theory went. The dénouement however came in the Supreme Court judgement, which Qayyum quotes from frequently in his book. Page 188 of the verdict states: “…there was a serious attempt on the part of the investigating agency to fabricate a case against the accused persons and frame them…” As he left home after being picked up in August 2003, Qayyum writes he “stared” at his “favourite mosque” passing by, his father -- oblivious to his arrest -- sipping tea at a nearby shop. “I only waved because who knows I might not return.” His father died while Quyyum was moved from one prison to the other.

The day he returned a free man, 11 years later, there was “no sense in my feet.” “I was flowing on the flood of the crowd of people, with support on their shoulders”.

Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/from-death-row-terror-accused-to-innocent-a-muslim-s-account-of-frame-up-and-ruse/article1-1345348.aspx [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Madhya Pradesh: Man gets death sentence for wife's murder

Last Updated: Friday, May 8, 2015 - 22:55

Shahdol: A district and sessions court in Madhya Pradesh has awarded capital punishment to a man for murdering his wife in a brutal way. 

The incident had taken place at Seoni village under Jaithari police station area.

District judge Anand Mohan Khare of Annoopur sentenced Phoolchand Rathore (51) to death yesterday for killing his wife by banging her head on a railway track on February 1, 2010.

They had had a quarrel over disappearance of jewellery before the incident, according to the prosecution.

Public prosecutor Ram Naresh Tripathi said that Rathore's daughter appeared as a prosecution witness and told the court that her father took away her mother on that day forcibly and later she was found dead.

PTI

Source: http://zeenews.india.com/news/madhya-pradesh/man-gets-death-sentence-for-wifes-murder_1592279.html [last accessed 25.08.2015]

West Bengal: Man given death sentence for setting wife on fire

Press Trust of India | Nadia (WB) 

May 7, 2015 Last Updated at 20:57 IST

A 32-year-old man was today sentenced to death by a sessions court here for setting his wife on fire for dowry. 

Dipankar Ghosh (32) of Bhajanghat Kalitala in Nadia district was given the capital punishment by Partha Sarathi Mukhopadhyay, Additional Session Judge, Krishnagar. 

Five other accused, all family members of the convict, were acquitted and released by the court, Public Prosecutor Ashok Mukherjee said. 

Ashima Ghosh (25), wife of the convict, was set on fire on November 24, 2012. She was rushed to a local hospital and later shifted to a hospital in Kolkata where she succumbed to her burns, the Public Prosecutor said. 

The victim in her statements to the police in the local hospital and to doctors in the Kolkata hospital said her husband had been torturing her for dowry ever since she married him in 2009.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/man-given-death-sentence-for-setting-wife-on-fire-115050701086_1.html [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Uttar Pradesh: Murder case: Death sentence for man, life for 4

Press Trust of India | Ballia 

May 7, 2015 Last Updated at 19:32 IST

A local court has awarded death sentence to a man and life terms to four others in a six-year- old murder case, terming it as "rarest of rare" and the killing as "most cruel". 

Additional sessions judge D P N Singh announced death sentence for Munna Rajbhar and life imprisonment for Hausala Devi, her father Ramjit Yadav and brothers Avdhesh Yadav and Dinesh Yadav. 

Ramdhyan Yadav was killed on August 10, 2009 in Khadsara village under Khejuri police station area and his body was thrown away, the prosecution said. 

Yadav's wife Hausala Devi was having an illicit relationship with Rajbhar. On that fateful day, he (Yadav) was on his way to her parents' house on her invitation when Rajbhar slit his neck and abdomen and also pulled out his intestines, prosecution said, adding that an FIR for murder and hiding the body was lodged. 

After hearing both the sides, the court termed the murder as most cruel and the case as rarest of rare and awarded the sentences.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/murder-case-death-sentence-for-man-life-for-4-115050700932_1.html [last accessed 28.05.2015]

HC commutes death penalty to life term

TNN | May 6, 2015, 02.12AM IST

AHMEDABAD: Gujarat high court on Tuesday commuted the death sentence of Keshav Joshi to life imprisonment. Joshi had been awarded death penalty for raping his two-and-a-half-year old niece and leaving her to die in 2007 in Halol town of Panchmahal district. The bench headed by Justice R R Tripathi commuted Joshi's death penalty after saying that "his case does not fall in the rarest of the rare category", said his counsel Jiten Buddhbhatti. 

According to the case details, the toddler was raped and then thrown into thorny bushes by Joshi, who was then working as a private security guard. The child was rushed to SSG hospital in Vadodara, where he succumbed to her injuries. Joshi and the family of the victim both hail from Nepal. The accused was thrashed by people and then handed over to police. He was booked for rape and murder. A trial court in Godhra heard the case and awarded death penalty to Joshi in 2013. 

Joshi challenged his conviction before the high court, which concluded that there is ample evidence against Joshi to prove his guilty. However, the case does not fall in the rarest of the rare category and hence the extreme punishment was commuted to life imprisonment.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/HC-commutes-death-penalty-to-life-term/articleshow/47168578.cms [last accessed 28.05.2015]