Abolish Death Penalty India: Justice H L Dattu

Showing posts with label Justice H L Dattu. Show all posts

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Supreme Court slaps death sentence on woman

May 16, 2015 - J. Venkatesan |

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]

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