Abolish Death Penalty India: Karnataka high court

Showing posts with label Karnataka high court. Show all posts

Sunday, December 23, 2018

HC confirms death penalty for Cyanide Mohan (Karnataka)

TNN | Nov 16, 2017, 12.30 AM IST

Vasantha.Kumar

Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court on Wednesday upheld the death penalty imposed on serial killer ‘Cyanide’ Mohan for the murder of Sunanda, a resident of Sullia, in February 2008. A division bench comprising Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice John Michael Cunha, while allowing the criminal reference case, noted there are aggravating circumstances to impose the maximum punishment (death penalty) on Mohan, who was reportedly involved in at least 20 such incidents where he killed women using cyanide.

Mohan Kumar aka Cyanide Mohan

This is the third criminal reference case relating to Mohan decided by the court. Sunanda, 28, was the second daughter of Rathnavathi (complainant) of Vaipala Mane, Peruvaje village, Sullia taluk of Dakshina Kannada district. She rolled beedies and was secretary of the Dharmasthala Self Help Group. According to the complaint lodged by her mother, Sunanda was among many people taken to a political convention organised by the Congress party in Mangaluru on January 19, 2008 by the local leaders of Sullia. On her way back to Mangaluru, Mohan Kumar introduced himself as Shashidhara who was a supervisor in the central government and took her mobile number. Mohan would call her and expressed his willingness to marry her. He asked her to come to Malla temple in Kasargod to remove the hurdle to their marriage. Believing him, Sunanda left home on February 11, 2008 with Mohan.

She took Rs 25,000, taken as a loan from a rural development bank, and gold ornaments. She was found dead the next day at the Mysuru bus stand. Mohan took her gold jewellery and gave it to a finance company. In separate cases pertaining to the murders of two women, the court had set aside the death penalty to Mohan. It sentenced him to life in one case (murder of Anitha) and imposed five years for robbery (murder of Leelavathi). On December 21, 2013, the district and sessions court at Mangaluru convicted Mohan and imposed the death penalty in all three murder cases which were then referred to the Karnataka high court for confirmation.

Mohan had separately filed criminal appeals, challenging his conviction in all the cases. 25 criminal reference cases decided With the deciding of this criminal reference case, the division bench comprising Justice Rav Malimath and Justice John Michael Cunha has decided 25 criminal reference cases, more than half of them relating to Dandupalya gang members and 37 connected criminal appeals associated with them. Under section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a death sentence given by a sessions court has to be submitted through a criminal reference case before the high court for confirmation. HC reserves verdict.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/hc-confirms-death-penalty-for-cyanide-mohan/articleshowprint/61664618.cms (Accessed 23 December 2018)

Thursday, December 20, 2018

HC stays death sentence of serial killer Umesh Reddy (Karnataka)

Bengaluru | Thursday, Oct 20 2016 IST

Karnataka High Court today stayed execution of the death sentence awarded to serial killer and rapist Umesh Reddy.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S K Mukherjee and Justice Budihal, directed the Union and the State Governments to file their objections, if any on the petition filed by Mr Umesh Reddy,within 10 days. Umesh Reddy's Advocate Prof Ravikumar in his application had sought a stay on the death sentence stating that the delay to act on his mercy petition by the President for more than two years hadcreated mental agony to his client who was expecting decision in his favour.

A former Jawan of the CRPF and later the State Armed ReservePolice, Umesh had been accused of killing 18 women and raping 20 women across Karnataka, Maharasthra and Gujarat. He was, however,convicted in only nine cases, one of them being the rape and murder of Jayashree Subbaiah, a housewife in Peenya in 1998. He was,however, acquitted in 11 cases due to lack of evidence. On October 26, 2006, Judge K Sukanya of the Bangalore city Fast Track Court ordered multiple sentences, including a death sentence,a seven-year sentence, Rs 25,000 fine and a 10-year sentence plus Rs 25,000 fine.

Umesh Reddy

In November 1996, Umesh had attempted to rape a high school girl in Chitradurga. The girl managed to escape by hitting him with astone. A month later he raped and murdered 16-year-old Roopa in Chitradurga. In January, 1997, the girl he attempted to rape identified him at a Republic Day police parade and he was then arrested and dismissed from service. A court ordered that he be shifted to Ballari jail fromChitradurga. Umesh managed to escape from police custody while hewas being handed over to Ballari jail. After his escape, he killed an income tax officer's wife in Bengaluru, a girl in Ahmedabad, two girls in Vadodara, and a widow in Kunigal, Tumakuru district. Umesh managed to escape from police custody six times. After the trial, he was awarded the death sentence by a fast track court in Bengaluru in 2006. His appeals were dismissed by the High Court as well as Supreme Court.

Source: https://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20161020/2973634.html (Accessed 20 December 2018)

Friday, February 6, 2015

Death for seven commuted

Vasantha Kumar, TNN | Dec 18, 2014, 06.17AM IST

BENGALURU: The Karnataka high court on Wednesday commuted the death penalty of 7 members of the banned Deendar Channabasaveshwara Anjuman sect in connection with the 2000 serial church blasts. But the conviction of all 22 accused in the case has been upheld.

The blasts had occurred in June-July 2000 in Bengaluru, Hubballi and Wadi in Kalaburagi district. A division bench headed by Justice N Kumar commuted the death penalty awarded by a special court in 2008 to 7 of the convicts to life sentence. Also, the life sentence imposed on 15 other members of the sect has been upheld.

"The evidence on record clearly establishes that each of the accused is party to the conspiracy. They wanted to see how Hindus and Christians fight among themselves, so that peace in the society is destroyed. They printed pamphlets and circulated them, with the hope that Christians and Hindus would lock horns. In a country which believes in peaceful co-existence of all religions, the action of these is unpardonable," the bench said.

The bench even cited Karnataka's anthem penned by Rashtrakavi Kuvempu to describe the state as a garden of religions. While commuting the death penalty, the bench said no loss of life was reported in the blasts and the only intent was to bring disharmony.

"It is of utmost importance that a strong message is sent to all these misguided, evil-minded elements in society and in particular, the youth of the Muslim community to desist from indulging in any such anti-national activities lest the entire community gets a bad name. This is a country and state, which belongs to all religious denominations," the bench added. Zia-ul-Hassan, the kingpin, went absconding with his four children to Mardan city of Pakistan, and later died.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/Death-for-seven-commuted/articleshow/45556579.cms [last accessed 06.02.2015]

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