Abolish Death Penalty India: Sachin Kumar Singhraha

Showing posts with label Sachin Kumar Singhraha. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

SC Commutes Death Penalty, Sentences Child Rapist To 25 Years Without Remission (Madhya Pradesh)

March 12, 2019

The Supreme Court on Tuesday commuted the death sentence of a man held guilty of committing rape of a five-year-old girl and then killing her in 2015 in the Satna district of Madhya Pradesh. The apex court has sentenced the man to 25 years in jail without remission.

Earlier, the trial court had sentenced Sachin Kumar Singhraha to death, which was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Challenging the orders, counsel for the Singhraha had contended that he was sentenced on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the police had failed to establish his guilt beyond doubt. He said the lower courts had not followed SC framed guidelines while awarding the death penalty.

In 2016, a bench headed by then CJI T S Thakur had stayed the death sentence.

—India Legal Bureau

Source: http://www.indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/sc-commutes-death-penalty-sentences-child-rapist-to-25-years-without-remission-61916 (accessed on 29 May 2019)

Death penalty exception, life term is rule, says SC

J VENKATESAN

Published : Mar 21, 2019, 1:52 am IST

The death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inappropriate punishment.

Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that life imprisonment is the rule, to which the death penalty is the exception. The death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inappropriate punishment, having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the crime.

The apex court in a recent judgment said sentencing is a difficult task and often vexes the mind of the court, but where the option is between life imprisonment and a death sentence, if the court itself feels some difficulty in awarding one or the other, it is only appropriate that the lesser punishment be awarded.

A bench of Justices N.V. Ramana, M. Shantanagouder and Indira Banerjee said the courts are not obliged to make efforts either to give latitude to the prosecution or loosely construe the law in favour of the accused. The traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial. If a court finds it difficult to make a choice between death penalty and life imprisonment, it should opt for the lesser punishment.

In this case the appellant Sachin Kumar Singhraha was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a five-year-old girl in Madhya Pradesh. He took the child to the school where his own daughter was studying, but the victim did not return home that day. He raped and killed her and dumped the body in a well. Both the trial and high courts slapped death sentence on him and he preferred the present appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, the Bench in its verdict said “he has committed a heinous offence in a premeditated manner. He not only abused the faith reposed in him by the parents but also exploited the innocence and helplessness of a child as young as five years of age. At the same time, we are not convinced that the probability of reform of the accused/appellant is low, in the absence of prior offending history and keeping in mind his overall conduct.”

Source: https://www.asianage.com/india/all-india/210319/death-penalty-exception-life-term-is-rule-says-sc.html (accessed on 29 May 2019)

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