Abolish Death Penalty India: Akshay Thakur

Showing posts with label Akshay Thakur. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 25, 2018

Nirbhaya rapists will hang: Supreme Court rejects review plea, upholds 3 convicts' death penalty (Delhi)

Updated: Jul 9, 2018, 03:08 PM IST

Nirbhaya rapists will hang, ruled the Supreme Court as it upheld the death penalty of the three convicts in the six-year-old gangrape and murder case. (DECEMBER 16 CASE: TIMELINE)

The top court rejected the review petitions filed by the convicts in the brutal December 2012 Delhi gangrape and murder case today. The top court said that it will exercise its review jurisdiction only when there are apparent errors resulting in miscarriage of justice. Convicts cannot be allowed to re-argue their case under the garb of review petition, the Bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and R Banumathi noted. The apex court had on May 4 reserved its order on the review petitions filed by the convicts-- Pawan Gupta(31), Vinay Sharma (25), and Mukesh Singh (31).

A three-judge bench of the top court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and also comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and R Bhanumathi, will pronounce the verdict in the case. The fourth convict, Akshay Thakur (33) has not filed a review petition yet. The apex court had however in the last hearing, granted three weeks time to Akshay to file his review petition in the case. According to the prosecution, the 23-year-old paramedical student was assaulted and raped by six persons in a moving bus in South Delhi and thrown out with her male friend on the night of December 16, 2012. She subsequently died during the treatment at a Singapore hospital on December 29 the same year.

Out of the six convicts, prime accused Ram Singh had allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar jail in 2013 during the trial of the case. Another accused was found out by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) as a minor and sentenced him to three years term at a probation home. Saket's Fast track Court on September 13, 2013 pronounced death sentence to all the four convicts. The trial court then referred the case to the Delhi High Court for confirmation of their death sentence. The Delhi High Court had on January 2017, reserved its verdict on confirming the death sentence and appeals of the four convicts. The Supreme Court had on May 5, last year, upheld the Delhi High court order of death penalty to the four convicts. Following which, the three convicts appealed before the Supreme Court for reviewing its order of sentencing them to the gallows.

Source: https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-nirbhaya-rapists-will-hang-supreme-court-rejects-review-plea-upholds-3-convicts-death-penalty-2635102 (Accessed 25 December 2018)

Sunday, December 23, 2018

He deserved death sentence, say Akshay’s family members (Nirbhaya - Delhi)

Patna, May 5 (IANS) Akshay, a convict in the fatal 2012 gang rape of a 23-year-old paramedical student, deserved the death sentence, his family members said after the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for him and three others in the case on Friday.

“We have ended our relationship with him; Akshay is no more our family member; we have nothing to do with him,” a close family member told IANS over telephone from Lahang Karma village in Aurangabad district, about 150 km from here. “Please, we do not want to talk about him, he is our past, not present,” said another family member, as most of the family members of Akshay termed the apex court’s decision “right”. People in his village refused to talk about him as he brought disrepute to the village. “Our village was defamed due to Akshay’s involvement in the infamous case. We don’t want to discuss anything to defame our village any further,” Satender Kumar Singh, a villager said.

However, according to a neighbour of Akshay’s family, the entire family and some relatives were glued to the television set on Friday, “hoping against all hope that the apex court would overturn the death penalty.” “They were hopeful against all hope for some relief. It proved useless as Akshay’s fate was sealed the day he was convicted. The apex court only upheld it,” a villager said. The four — Mukesh Singh, Pawan Gupta, Vinay Sharma and Akshay Thakur — were convicted for raping and assaulting the 23-year-old paramedical student inside a moving bus in Delhi on December 16, 2012. The rapists, six in all, pounced on the young woman who had boarded the bus with her boyfriend to go home after seeing a movie “Life of Pi”.

The four convicts in Delhi gang-rape, 2012

As the bus moved on south Delhi roads, the convicts pulled out her internal organs with a rusted L-shaped iron rod used with a wheel jack. This led to her death due to internal injuries 13 days later in a Singapore hospital. After committing the crime, they dumped the woman and her friend on the side of a road. Some onlookers alerted the police. The sheer brutality of the crime led to nationwide revulsion and street protests. A fifth accused, Ram Singh, committed suicide in Tihar Central Jail in the national capital. The sixth, a juvenile, who was accused of ripping apart the woman’s intestines, was sent to a correction home and has been released after serving his probation period.

Source: https://www.india.com/news/agencies/he-deserved-death-sentence-say-akshays-family-members-2103105/ (Accessed 23 December 2018)

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

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