Abolish Death Penalty India: Maharashtra - Bombay High Court concludes hearing 7/11 serial blasts death confirmation pleas

Tuesday, January 28, 2025

Maharashtra - Bombay High Court concludes hearing 7/11 serial blasts death confirmation pleas

By Karuna Nidhi

Updated on: Jan 28, 2025 08:50 am IST

The Bombay High Court concluded hearings on death sentences for 7/11 blast convicts, with a verdict expected soon after queries on Friday.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday concluded the death sentence confirmation pleas and appeals of various accused convicted for their role in the 7/11 serial blasts in the city, which left 209 dead and over 700 injured. The special bench of justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak, which started hearing the pleas and appeals in July 2024, has posted the matter on Friday for queries, following which it will deliver its verdict.

On July 11, 2006, Mumbai was rocked by a series of seven powerful blasts on suburban locals on the western line, which ripped through the double-layered steel roofs and sides of each of the compartments. The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) subsequently arrested 13 men for their purported role in the blasts and put them on trial under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

On September 30, 2015, a special MCOCA court convicted 12 of the 13 accused barring a schoolteacher, who was exonerated. Five of the accused were sentenced to death while seven others were sentenced to life imprisonment. In July 2024, the special bench of justices Kilor and Chandak was constituted following an application by Ehtesham Siddique, one of the death row convicts, who sought an early hearing of matters, through his lawyer, advocate Yug Chaudhry. On Monday, senior advocate Raja Thakare, who was appointed as special public prosecutor for the case in September 2023, finally concluded his arguments. He questioned the relevance of the evidence presented in court, claiming the defence had tried to mislead the court by providing “misinformation” obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

He also raised concerns over the psychological state of the accused, saying, “The accused eventually came to realise that once sections under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) are applied, they are booked forever. They have been left questioning their future and feel that their fate has already been decided.” Earlier, on January 13, former Delhi high court judge S Murlidhar, appearing on behalf of two of the accused, urged the court to acquit the convicts, saying, “These accused have been in jail for 18 years now. They have not stepped outside even for a day.” Murlidhar argued that confessional statements were extracted from his clients through torture and the investigation was marred by preconceived notions of guilt and communal bias typical in terror-related cases, which had cost the accused their prime years. While wrapping up the hearing on Monday, the special bench expressed gratitude towards the counsels for carrying the arguments gracefully. It reserved the matter for queries on Friday, with the judgment in the case anticipated soon after.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/hc-concludes-hearing-7-11-serial-blasts-death-confirmation-pleas-101738004768281.html

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

India is one of 193 countries that retains the death penalty. Some judges have delivered landmark verdicts upholding the rights of death row prisoners, while debates continue advocating abolition or reform of sentencing policies. The Indian government remains committed to retention, asserting executions occur only in “rarest of rare” cases. The death penalty applies to crimes including murder, kidnapping, terrorism, desertion, inducement to suicide of a minor or mentally-retarded person, and in certain cases of rape. Outrage over child rape and murder has intensified these discussions. After an unofficial eight-year moratorium, the government executed Ajmal Kasab (Mumbai attacks) in 2012 and Afzal Guru (Parliament attack) in 2013, both covertly and immediately after mercy petitions were rejected. Prior to this, Dhananjoy Chatterjee was executed in 2004 after 13 years on death row. Following these, many mercy petitions have been rejected, creating fear among death row convicts. Courts continue to hand down death sentences at an increasing rate. Empirical studies highlight the plight of death row prisoners. The India Exclusion Report 2017-18 found fair trial rights largely denied, with convicts often marginalized by caste, religion, poverty, and education. The Death Penalty Research Project (2015) documented socio-economic profiles and experiences of death row prisoners. Dr. Reena Mary George’s studies (2014, 2009) emphasized poverty, social exclusion, and dignity as central to death row experiences, and examined the human rights impact of the penalty. According to the National Crime Records Bureau 2015, 101 prisoners were on death row, with many sentences commuted to life. The “rarest of rare” doctrine introduced by the Supreme Court in the 1980s has not substantially limited death sentences, which have increased over the decades. Justice Joseph (2018) reaffirmed the Bachan Singh judgment but urged restriction of the death penalty to only those cases meeting its criteria. 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