Abolish Death Penalty India: Sonu Sardar

Showing posts with label Sonu Sardar. Show all posts

Sunday, December 23, 2018

Delhi HC sets aside President’s order rejecting mercy plea of death-row convict (Chhattisgarh)

Jun 29, 2017 07:33 IST

New Delhi, Hindutan Times

This judgment is an embarrassment for the President’s office, which acts on the aid and advice of the Union home ministry in deciding mercy pleas.

The Delhi high court set aside on Wednesday the President’s order rejecting the mercy plea of a death-row convict and reduced his sentence to life term. The court order follows a petition filed by the advocate of convicted dacoit Sonu Sardar, who killed five members of a family, including two children, during a robbery in Chhattisgarh’s Cher village in 2004. A division bench of justices GS Sistani and Vinod Goel said the presidential order rejecting the convict’s appeal for clemency was vitiated. “The mercy petition was processed in an extremely cavalier and casual fashion by the state government at all stages, right up to placing the note for the governor,” the court said.

This judgment is an embarrassment for the President’s office, which acts on the aid and advice of the Union home ministry in deciding mercy pleas. The Supreme Court too has commuted death sentences, holding delay and not taking into account relevant factors in deciding mercy pleas as reasons for reducing the punishment. Dacoit Sardar was sentenced to death in 2008 by a trial court and the Chhattisgarh high court upheld the verdict. The Supreme Court too stood by the two lower courts in February 2012. His mercy petition was dismissed by the state government and the President in May 2014. In February 2015, the apex court rejected his review plea.

Sonu Sardar

The convict then moved the Delhi high court against the decision of the Chhattisgarh government and the President. In its order, the high court said: “The relevant considerations of the mitigating circumstances, recommendation of the jail superintendent and the young age of the petitioner were not placed before the governor depriving him of the opportunity to exercise his power in a fair and just manner.” The court noted that there were “numerous discrepancies and falsities” in the affidavits filed by the Chhattisgarh government. It further remarked that the “supervening circumstance of solitary confinement coupled with the non-placement of relevant considerations and considering of extraneous considerations has vitiated the decision of the governor and the President”.

Sardar was kept in solitary confinement for five years, which the court said violated his fundamental rights. “This court, being the sentinel of the Constitution, is bound to intervene and give relief to the petitioner,” it added. Also, the court made it clear that “life imprisonment means (till the) end of one’s life”.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/delhi-hc-sets-aside-president-s-order-rejecting-mercy-plea-of-death-row-convict/story-vGWeRGerBjLBRC85YW4jAL.html (Accessed 23 December 2018).

Thursday, December 20, 2018

Death row convict: SC seeks Centre’s response on Chandigarh plea

By PTI |New Delhi |Published: September 2, 2016 7:28:13 pm

It has said that just because there was a delay in deciding on his mercy petition, it cannot be a ground for the matter to fall in the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court.

The Supreme Court on September 2 sought response from the Centre on a plea of Chhattisgarh government challenging the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court to grant stay on the execution of a man held guilty for the murder of five persons, including two children, in 2004. A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and U U Lalit also stayed the proceedings in the case pending before the Delhi High Court and posted the matter for further hearing on October 5.

Sonu Sardar

The state government has challenged the Delhi High Court order saying it had no jurisdiction to stay the execution as the offence had taken place in Chhattisgarh and even the apex court had upheld the death sentence of convict Sonu Sardar. It has said that just because there was a delay in deciding on his mercy petition, it cannot be a ground for the matter to fall in the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court. The state government has sought transfer of the matter from the Delhi High Court to Chhattisgarh High Court. The Delhi High Court has on March 2, 2015, stayed the execution of Sardar convicted for the murder of five persons, including two children, in Chhattisgarh in 2004.

The convict’s “black warrant” (death warrant) was scheduled to be signed on March 4, 2015. Sardar in his plea before the Delhi High Court had contended that there was delay of two years and two months by the President in deciding on his mercy plea. Sonu Sardar, along with his brother and accomplices, had killed five persons of a family, including a woman and two children, during a dacoity bid in Chhattisgarh’s Cher village in November 2004. The trial court had slapped death penalty on him and the Chhattisgarh High Court had upheld it.

The Supreme Court in February 2012 had concurred with the findings of two courts and affirmed the punishment. In February 2015, the apex court also rejected his review plea. Sardar, in his petition, has also sought commuting of his death sentence to life imprisonment on account of delay in deciding his mercy plea as well as for allegedly keeping him in “solitary confinement illegally”.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/death-row-convict-sc-seeks-centres-response-on-chandigarh-plea-3010426/ (Accessed 20 December 2018)

Thursday, February 12, 2015

SC dismisses review plea by death row convict

The supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a plea by a death row convict Sonu Sardar seeking recall of its Febr 23, 2012 verdict upholding his death sentence for "ruthlessly killing" five members of a scrap dealer's family in Chhatisgarh. A bench of Justice Anil R. Dave, Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit dismissed the plea after holding a detailed hearing of the matter in the open court. Sardar along with Ajay Singh and three more people had killed Shamim Akhtar, a scrap dealer and four members of his family.

The apex court Feb 23, 2012, while upholding Sardar's death sentence, had said: "Five members of a family including two minor children and the driver were ruthlessly killed by the use of a knife, an axe and an iron rod and with the help of four others. The crime was obviously committed after pre-meditation with absolutely no consideration for human lives and for money." "Even though the appellant was young, his criminal propensities are beyond reform and he is a menace to the society.

The trial court and the high court were therefore right in coming to the conclusion that this is one of those rarest of rare cases in which death sentence is the appropriate punishment," the court had said in its judgment. Sardar's plea seeking the review of the court's Feb 23, 2012 order was taken up for an open court hearing following the apex court constitution bench's Sep 2, 2014 decision that in the cases where the death sentence has been upheld by the apex court, the death row convict will have a right that his petition seeking a review will be heard by the three judges bench in an open court.

Source: http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20150210/2535991.html [last accessed 12.02.2015)

Friday, February 6, 2015

SC has second thoughts on death penalty given by itself

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Nov 13, 2014, 05.51AM IST

NEW DELHI: Showing increasing discomfiture in awarding death penalty, the Supreme Court on Wednesday found two questions "bothering" it much after Sonu Sardar was awarded death penalty by the trial court, which was confirmed by the high court and upheld by the apex court, and the President rejected his mercy petition.

Sonu and his minor accomplice were arrested but three other associates in the crime escaped after almost wiping out the family of a Muslim scrap dealer including two minor children and a woman in Chhattisgarh in 2004. The three absconders are yet to be arrested. Sonu was the only one to face criminal trial for dacoity-cum-murder.

The trial court convicted him on the testimony of a minor who escaped the attack. The HC confirmed the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court. The apex court upheld the concurrent judgments on February 23, 2012. Sonu's review petition was dismissed in chamber.

But as per the new procedure laid down by the apex court, a bench of Justices A R Dave, J Chelameswar and U U Lalit heard afresh in open court Sonu's petition seeking review of the 2012 judgment. Appearing for Sonu, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said it has now come to light that the accused was 18 years and 2 months at the time of commission of crime.

The bench's primary question to Chhattisgarh counsel Atul Jha was whether it was correct that the accused was just over the age of juvenility and not 23 years as was recorded in the judgments. The second question which bothered the court was whether it could be pin-pointed from evidence that Sonu played the major role in the multiple murders.

"There were three other accomplices in the dacoity-cum-murder incident who are not yet apprehended. The other accomplice was a minor. It is possible that these four could have committed the murders. Can it be said with certainty that Sonu dealt the fatal blows," the bench asked and sought answers from the state by January 20.

Interestingly, both these points were dealt with in the February 23, 2012 judgment of a bench of Justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar. It had referred to the evidence and said, "There is, therefore, clear and definite evidence in this case to show that the appellant (Sonu Sardar) not only participated in the crime, but also played the lead role in the offence under Section 396 IPC. This is not a case where it can be held that the role of appellant was not such as to warrant death sentence under Section 396 IPC." Ramachandran said the apex court had erroneously recorded that there were no mitigating circumstances in Sonu's favour. He said Sonu had no previous criminal record, he was not beyond reformation given the "tender" age, and that he had not attempted to escape despite getting an opportunity during a jail break.

He said that though these facts showed that Sonu could beamenable to reform, the state had not discharged its duty of proving that the convict was beyond the realm of reformation. Taking into account the young age of Sonu, the court in its 2012 judgment had said, "The crime was obviously committed after pre-meditation with absolutely no consideration for human lives and for money. Even though the appellant was young, his criminal propensities are beyond reform and he is a menace to society. The trial court and high court were therefore right in coming to the conclusion that this is one of those rarest of rare cases in which death sentence is the appropriate punishment."

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-has-second-thoughts-on-death-penalty-given-by-itself/articleshow/45130084.cms [last accessed 06.02.2015]

SC gives first open court hearing on review plea of death row convict

Last Updated: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 20:08 PTI

New Delhi: A death row convict from Chhattisgarh on Tuesday became the first person to get the benefit of the Supreme Court's recent ruling that condemned prisoners must be given an open court hearing on the petition seeking review of the capital punishment. Sonu Sardar, whose mercy petition was rejected by the President, was given an open hearing in accordance with the September 2 verdict of the five-judge Constitution Bench which had held that a limited oral hearing even at the review stage is mandated by Article 21 in all death sentence cases.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice A R Dave said "the review petition will be considered only to the extent of the sentence part". "We are not in appeal. How do we sit on appeal. It has to be confined to sentence," the bench, also comprising Justices J Chelameswar and U U Lalit said while disagreeing with Sardar's counsel and senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who was urging for re-examination of the findings on conviction. The bench issued notice while seeking response from the Chhattisgarh Government and posted the matter for hearing on November 12. The state government's standing counsel Atul Jha also raised objection to the submission of Sardar's counsel that the conviction should be relooked. Ramachandran's submission that proper legal assistance was not provided to the apex court during the hearing of the appeal as advocate was from the Supreme Court Legal Aid did not go well with the bench.

The bench said it was not correct to make submission like this as it would be like blaming the apex court. "I am sorry to say this and I am anguished to say this. Don't blame Supreme Court if legal assistance was not rendered properly. I request senior advocates to sit and examine how matters are argued. It is not for us judges but for institution," Justice Chelameswar said. While disagreeing with Ramachandran that the entire matter has to be looked into, the bench said "we have seen the entire thing and we have seen that conviction part has been well considered in the judgement". Sardar, who was few months above the age of minority, was convicted and sentenced to death for killing five family members including two minors of a scrap dealer in Raipur on November 26, 2004 by the trial court on February 27, 2008. The Chhattisgarh High Court and the Supreme Court had confirmed it on March 8, 2010 and February 23, 2012 respectively. The Supreme Court had thereafter on June 19 stayed execution of his death sentence. The President had rejected his mercy plea on April 21 this year.

Source: http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/sc-gives-first-open-court-hearing-on-review-plea-of-death-row-convict_1474711.html [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