Abolish Death Penalty India: German bakery blast: State challenges Bombay HC verdict converting Baig’s death penalty to life (Maharashtra)

Thursday, December 20, 2018

German bakery blast: State challenges Bombay HC verdict converting Baig’s death penalty to life (Maharashtra)

By Express News Service |Pune/new Delhi |Published: July 1, 2016 12:20:57 am

Government has also taken objection to the HC’s remarks on terror operative Yasin Bhatkal in this case. The Maharashtra government on Thursday moved the Supreme Court (SC), seeking death penalty for Mirza Himayat Inayat Baig (32), the lone convict in the German Bakery blast in Pune, which had claimed 17 lives on February 13, 2010. The appeal filed through state government’s standing counsel Nishant R Katneshwarkar challenged the Bombay High Court (HC) verdict that had commuted Baig’s capital punishment to life term.

It also challenged Baig’s acquittal under various sections of the Unlawful Prevention (Activities) Act and the IPC, including Sections 302 (murder) read with 120-B (criminal conspiracy), by the High Court. The High Court has given life term to Baig, 32, under the Explosive Substances Act. The state has also taken objection to the HC’s remarks on terror operative Yasin Bhatkal in this case. The ATS had arrested Baig, a native of Beed district of Maharashtra, on September 7, 2010, from Pulgate area of Pune for his alleged involvement in the German Bakery blast.

German bakery blast convict Himayat Baig (Photo Deccan Chronicle)

On April 18, 2013, the sessions court in Pune awarded death sentence to Baig, holding him guilty under Sections 10 (b), 16 (1)(a) of UAPA, Sections 302, 120 (b) of IPC and Section 3 of Explosives Substances Act. Baig moved the HC against the lower court order, and on March 17, this year, the HC, while setting aside Baig’s death sentence, acquitted him from charges under Sections of UAPA, Sections 120 (b), 302 of IPC and Section 3 (b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

The court granted him life term, holding him guilty under Section 5 (b) of the Explosive Substances Act, and seven years’ imprisonment as charge under Section 474 of IPC was confirmed. Speaking to The Indian Express, special public prosecutor Raja Thakre confirmed that the state had filed an appeal in SC against the Bombay HC order. “We have challenged the acquittal orders of the HC on certain sections against Baig. We also have raised objections on the remarks of the HC on Yasin Bhatkal. We have appealed to the SC that these remarks be expunged from the records,” said Thakre.

According to ATS, the bakery blast conspiracy was hatched in Colombo in 2008 and finalised in Udgir in Maharashtra in January 2010. The chargesheet said that Baig was the alleged LeT commander for Maharashtra. ATS has alleged that Baig had gone to Colombo in March 2008 to discuss the plan with Fayyaz Kagzi and Zabiuddin Ansari and “the diabolic design to cause further terrorist activities was finalised” there. Baig was allegedly trained by the duo to build an explosive device and explode it. They are also suspected to have given him money for explosive devices and travel of Muslim youth indoctrinated for terror training.

On February 13, Baig and Yasin allegedly carried the explosive device in a private vehicle from Udgir to Latur and in a state transport bus from Latur to Pune. The duo then hailed an autorickshaw to travel from Poolgate bus stand to Pune Railway Station and from there they went to Central Mall in another autorickshaw. “Yasin planted the bomb in a haversack at the bakery around 5 pm and triggered it with the help of a mobile triggering device at 6.50 pm,” the chargesheet stated.

Meanwhile, ATS claimed that Yasin Bhatkal was seen in the CCTV footage obtained from the blast site. Later, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the probe into the case. In June 2012, the accused Zabiudding Ansari alias Abu Jundal was deported from Saudi Arabia to India. In August 2013, the accused Yasin Bhatkal was held on the India-Nepal border. In March 2014, ATS formally arrested Yasin in the German Bakery blast case and filed a supplementary chargesheet against him in August.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/german-bakery-blast-state-challenges-bombay-hc-verdict-converting-baigs-death-penalty-to-life/ (Accessed 20 December 2018)

No comments:

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reena Mary George

Abolish Death Penalty India

Thursday, December 20, 2018

German bakery blast: State challenges Bombay HC verdict converting Baig’s death penalty to life (Maharashtra)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers