Under New Law, Madhya Pradesh Has Sentenced 26 Rapists to Death

Rashme Sehgal

21/MAY/2019

Activists are concerned that the swiftness with which judgments are delivered might mean the accused – who usually come from poor socio-economic backgrounds – are not receiving a fair trial.

In February 2018, Madhya Pradesh passed a law to allow sentencing those convicted of raping minor girls to death. Since then, the special court set up under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has served 21 death sentences in 2018 and another five in 2019. Additionally, 168 eight rapists were served life imprisonment in 2018. One of these judgments was pronounced in a record of five days. Remarking on the swiftness of the judgment, director general of prosecution Rajendra Kumar says, “This is the swiftest capital punishment given to anybody in the history of jurisprudence. This case has found mention in the India Book of Records.”

Many of the accused come from extremely poor socio-economic backgrounds and could not even muster up a lawyer to defend themselves against the charges. One of the shortest trials was that of Motilal Ahirwar, who was accused of raping a seven-year-old girl on May 29, 2018. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on August 8. The trial of Rajkumar, an autorickshaw driver who was accused of raping a four-year-old girl on July 4 last year, was equally swift. The chargesheet was filed in a Special Court that deals under POCSO on July 20. The verdict was given on July 27. It turns out that since neither he nor his family could afford a lawyer, he was provided a lawyer from the MP States Legal Services Authority. The lawyer assigned to him was B.M. Rathore, who because of the speed with which the trial was conducted, revealed that he did not even have the time to speak to the accused.

DG Kumar brushes away criticism that the accused did not have lawyers. He clarified, “Lawyers have been made available to all the accused. It is not correct to say that they did not have lawyers.” “These are heinous crimes and deserve the strictest punishment,” said Kumar, citing the instance of a four-year-old girl who was abducted and raped by her father’s close friend in Satna district in July 2018. She had to be air lifted in an air ambulance and brought to the AIIMS, where a team of surgeons performed life-saving surgery on her genitalia. She was discharged from AIIMS six months later. “We did not want to delay the case and applied to a Delhi court to go ahead with the prosecution. A magistrate was appointed and the girl gave her statement over video. The rapist, who was a teacher in a primary school, was convicted over video since the girl recognised him as the abuser. He has been served a death sentence without the victim having to step into the court. This is also a first, where a victim was not required to come to court to give evidence. Even the PMO has taken note of this case,’ said Kumar.

Perpetrators usually know the victim

The National Crime Record Bureau’s (NCRB) data shows that in more than 94% instances of rape, the offender is a person that the victim knows – a family member or a neighbour. “Emotional manipulation does come into play in such cases,” he said, citing the example of a maternal grandfather who manipulated his daughter and granddaughter (who was the victim). Both of them turned hostile during the trial. “The verdict did not go against the investigating team because the DNA report matched the semen of the accused,” said DG Kumar insisting, “scientific evidence goes a long way in providing clinching evidence in these cases.” The grandfather appealed before the sessions court, which reduced the capital punishment to life imprisonment. After the death penalty was introduced for the rape of a minor, offenders have killed their victim. The perpetrator may also pressure the victim and family to remain silent. DG Kumar has come across several such instances, the most heinous being a case where the child’s brother and chacha chose to kill a girl after raping her. They did want her to give evidence against them.

Appeals process

In a majority of the cases, the accused have sought an appeal against the capital punishment. In six cases, the Bhopal high court confirmed the death sentence, while in four, it was reduced to life imprisonment. In some cases, life imprisonment has been given up to death, while in other instances, a rapist is made to serve a 14-year sentence. Convicted rapists are also usually confined to a solitary cell. Activists who had fought for stringent punishment in rape cases are unhappy with the speed at which these judgments are being delivered. Dr Ranjana Kumari, who heads the Centre for Social Research, believes these verdicts are ‘a political mockery’, with the courts playing to the political gallery. “At this rate, we will soon hear of thousands of such verdicts from across the country. In the police registry, there are four-and-a-half lakh names of men accused of rape during the past decade. Given these stats, will the state take responsibility for killing so many (rapists) in the future?” she asks. Kumari cites the example of the two Mewati brothers who were accused of raping and killing a six-year old girl in Mandsaur in Madhya Pradesh in June 2018. The local bar association passed a resolution not to defend them. The lawyer provided by the state said that since the public sentiment against them was so strong, they could not produce a single witness. They were served a death sentence on August 21.

The states of Arunachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana passed similar laws recently, allowing those convicted for raping a child below the age of 12 to be served a death sentence. In July 2018, a special court in Alwar sentenced 19-year-old Pintu to death for raping a seven-month-old child in Rajasthan’s Laxmangarh area. In this state, the special judge conducted daily hearings and again, the verdict was delivered in record time. But the death sentence is considered the rarest of rare punishments. Between 2004-18, only four death sentences were served. From these, three were terrorists while the fourth man who hanged was Dhananjoy Chatterjee who had reportedly raped and murdered a 14-year old girl. In September last year, the Supreme Court stayed the death sentence Rajkumar, who was accused of raping a four-year-old. Lawyers expect the highest court to stay other cases too. Senior advocate Rebecca John has also expressed concern at the string of judgments issued by the lower courts in Madhya Pradesh. “Women safety should be a priority for any government, but this is hardly the way to show they mean business. These verdicts are nothing but an abdication of the principles of natural justice. Every individual has the right to a fair trial. Unfortunately, a lynch mob mentality seems to have taken over which has created an atmosphere of extreme prejudice,” she said.

Swetashree Majumdar, a young lawyer who worked on preparing the Justice Verma Committee report that made recommendations on rape, police reforms, providing quicker trials and stricter punishment for those who commit crimes against young girls, believes the government has not collated any evidence on whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent in cases of rape. “We have no statistics to show that the death sentence helps reduce rape. Even if we take the examples of our neighbours – Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan – who hand out the death penalty for rape, we find that it has not acted as a deterrent. The system desists from handing out these convictions,” said Majumdar.

When DIG Kumar was asked if the swift and severe punishments have acted as a deterrent, he mulls over the question for a while. He then says, “To a small extent, yes.”

Source: https://thewire.in/law/madhya-pradesh-death-sentence-pocso-law-convicted-rapists (accessed on 30 May 2019)

Supreme Court India issues notice to Centre on death penalty in SC/ST cases

10 MAY 2019 Last Updated at 4:18 PM | SOURCE: IANS

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Centre on a plea challenging the validity of a section which prescribes for mandatory death sentence in a case where an innocent member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) or a Scheduled Tribe (ST) is convicted and is executed as a consequence of false and fabricated evidence given by the accused. The action of a bench headed by Justice S.A. Bobde came on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the mandatory death penalty under section 3(2)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The plea was filed by advocate Rishi Malhotra. The advocate told the court that the provision is "manifestly arbitrary, disproportionate, excessive, unreasonable, unjust, unfair, harsh, unusual and cruel".

Under Section 3(2)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whoever, not being a member of SC/ST, gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause any member of SC/ST to be convicted of an offence which is capital by the law for the time being in force shall be punished with imprisonment for life, and with fine, and if an innocent member of SC/ST is convicted and executed in consequence of such false or fabricated evidence, the person who gives or fabricates such false evidence, shall be punished with death.

Rishi Malhotra

The petitioner requested the court to strike down the provision with regard to mandatory death penalty as prescribed under Section 3(2)(i) of The Scheduled Castes & The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The petitioner said the said law is ultra vires of the Constitution and against the fundamental tenets of Constitutional laws. Citing various other sections which were quashed or amended by the court earlier, the advocate said: "As and when an occasion had arisen where the mandatory imposition of death penalty is called in question in different statutes, either this court by exercising its Constitutional powers of judicial review has struck down those provisions by holding it to be unconstitutional and void or the legislature itself has amended those provisions by removing the mandatory imposition of death penalty."

He mentioned Section 27(3) of the Arms Act which was declared void. He also told the court that the second part of Section 194 IPC is almost akin to Section 3(2)(i) of the Act but with a major difference in sentencing in as much as Section 194 IPC provides for an option of awarding death sentence or sentence of imprisonment for life. Similarly, Section 31A (1)(b) of the NDPS Act which initially provided for mandatory death sentence was rightly amended in 2014 by the legislature itself and further provided for an option of awarding death sentence or any other imprisonment as specified in Section 31 of the Act. Furthermore, if the mandatory death sentences are allowed to continue in the statute books, it would defeat the existence of very important provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure namely 235(2) Cr.P.C. as well as Section 354 (3) Cr.P.C. both of which provide for hearing of an accused on the quantum of sentence, the advocate added.

Source: https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/sc-issues-notice-to-centre-on-death-penalty-in-scst-cases/1531941 (accessed on 30 May 2019)

Death penalty conundrum

Subjectivity in imposition of the death penalty suggests that courts put a moratorium on such sentences until the legislature provides better sentencing guidelines

Sughosh Subramanyam & Sanskruti Samal | February 28, 2019 2:40 pm

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that it was ‘reluctant’ to endorse death penalty even after years of its existence. Death penalty is a subject of perennial controversy in India. We may remind that India is one of the 39 countries that continues with the death penalty. When it comes to actual imposition, of late judges at the highest levels of judiciary have been showing restraint, considering the vagueness in the law concerning the choice between death sentence and life imprisonment.

Photo: Getty Images

As much as the law outwardly seems to have refined, yet the choice of imposition largely rests on the judge’s discretion. There are umpteen precedents which point that the judge’s reasoning for imposition of death penalty are often rhetorical and filled with subjectivity leading to inconsistent results. Although we may seem critical here, yet our system provides some safeguards by asking well-qualified judges to make this choice rather than public juries, as happens in United States of America or farcical military courts of Pakistan.

Let us first contextualize the conundrum we face; our Constitution provides for ‘right to life subject to the procedure established by law’ under Article 21. Supreme Court once read the same strictly by holding that life can be extinguished by the Government if procedures are promptly followed. However, those days are long gone, and our Supreme Court has expanded right to life in leaps and bounds. Presently it is not enough for the procedure which takes away to be fair, just and reasonable alone, rather the substantive law itself needs to be fair as well. However, it may not be out of context to mention that our founding fathers, as evident from the Constituent Assembly debates, left the implications of death penalty to the wisdom of the legislature. (refer to speeches of Prof. Sibhu Lal Saxena, Pandit Thakur Bhargav Das or Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on 3 June 1949).

In any case we may remind that the constitutionality of death penalty has been unsuccessfully challenged a couple of times before the Supreme Court. The last time the constitutionality of the death penalty was challenged was in Jag Mohan Singh and Bachan Singh Case, almost four decades ago. Considering the changes to jurisprudence, the Supreme Court needs to re-visit this area soon. Viewed from a different angle, usually a punishment is given to serve multiple purposes, and chief among them is the deterrence it creates in society. There have been many academic studies which indicate that the death penalty does not serve as a good deterrent mechanism. In any case, India voted on 22 September 2017 in UN resolution (A/HRC/36/L.6) against the motion to abolish the ‘death penalty’. Moreover, the number of death penalties granted in 2018 is the highest since 2000 and is pegged at 162. This raise is due to change in the law, which allows death penalty for non-homicidal crimes as well.

Before we go any further, it is relevant to note the statutory changes adopted by the legislature when it comes to death penalty jurisprudence. To start the narration of the law as it existed, Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, held that death was the norm for offences and judges had to give special reasons to impose life imprisonment. In 1955 an amendment was introduced whereby the terms of imprisonment and the death penalty were equal possibilities in a capital case. After 1973 with the introduction of present Code of Criminal Procedure, under Section 235(2), judges need to provide special reasons for imposition of the death sentence. The legislative trend shows complete reversal of the law. In this context there is no gainsaying that the recent judicial trend shows an inclination towards abolition.

Most recent cases which raised eyebrows are the Dhananjay Chatterjee case and Nirbhaya case. The criticism has been stark, and some have gone to the extent of calling these ‘judicially authorized violence’. However, we are of the opinion that the criticism stems from non-uniformity in exercise of judges’ discretion, which provides for personal preferences and views, public as well as personal, to play a significant role in making the choice. It is more disturbing to note that Supreme Court is aware of this and has acknowledged this disparity in multitude of cases starting with Shankar Kisanrao Khade Case. Further the 262nd Law Commission Report highlights the extent of judge-centric arbitrary approach under the present system of death penalty, wherein they observed that the constitutional regulation of death penalty against arbitrary application has failed. It was further observed therein that such a rigid categorisation of the offence is arbitrary as it treats dissimilar cases on an equal parameter, but sadly there exists no uniform principle to remove such arbitrariness from the judge made sentencing policy.

When the Constitutionality of death penalty is beyond reach as the same has been settled by two five judge benches of the Supreme Court, the issue which needs to be considered is ‘whether the death penalty has been applied unconstitutionally?’ There have been multiple cases having similar facts but have ended with dissimilar result, due to large discretion available with the Courts. Of more concern are cases wherein the Court accepts that the crime was depraved yet does not convince itself to give a death penalty. It is usually public pressure or other extraneous factors which tip the scales in favour of the death penalty. Coming back to the hesitancy of the Supreme Court in giving death penalty, there exists explicit acceptance by the judges of the Court itself that there is no judicial uniformity or basis for imposition of death penalty in India. The Standards laid out in catena of cases still provide for large discretion of judges. We may remind that the need for uniform application of criminal law is not a new one.

Ashokan Pillar VI in Delhi recognized the need for such uniformity centuries ago. Having considered a large body of judgments, we are of the opinion that courts in India have been inconsistently applying the death penalty as punishment which has led to unconstitutional and arbitrary application of law. It is time for the Apex Court to recognize the unconstitutional disparity in application of death penalty and put a temporary moratorium on its use until the legislature provides for better sentencing guidelines for the judiciary to apply. In the meanwhile, we need to reflect as to whether ‘mercy is a charity of a judge’ or ‘leniency is a virtue of civilized society’? A good starting point would be to analyze the last dissent of Justice Kurian Joseph, wherein he observed that death penalty was unconstitutional in India.

(The writers are, respectively, a practicing advocate and a Research Assistant at the Supreme Court of India.)

Source: https://www.thestatesman.com/supplements/law/death-penalty-conundrum-1502735501.html (accessed on 29 May 2019)

Supreme Court commutes Santosh Mane’s death sentence to life term (Maharashtra)

By Express News Service |Pune |Published: January 10, 2019 4:44:39 am

On January 25, 2012, Mane, then 41 years old, had hijacked a state transport bus and mowed down nine persons with it. Mane, who was a state transport bus driver, had reported to work around 7 am at the Swargate bus depot, instead of his scheduled time of 10.30 am

Mane, then 41 years old, had hijacked a state transport bus and mowed down nine persons with it.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday commuted the death sentence awarded to Santosh Mane, convicted of mowing down and killing nine persons in Pune in 2012, to life imprisonment. Mane had been awarded the death sentence by a sessions court in 2013, which had said the crime fell in the rarest of rare’ category. A year later, the Bombay High Court had upheld the death penalty. It had rejected the plea by the defence, which had argued that Mane should be acquitted of the murder charges as he had committed the crime while he was ‘mentally unsound’. 

On January 25, 2012, Mane, then 41 years old, had hijacked a state transport bus and mowed down nine persons with it. Mane, who was a state transport bus driver, had reported to work around 7 am at the Swargate bus depot, instead of his scheduled time of 10.30 am. He had taken out a bus from the depot using a master key and then gone on a rampage, knocking down many two-wheelers, four-wheelers and pedestrians on the route, before he was stopped by local residents and police. By that time, Mane had traversed 15 km, across Golibar Maidan, Bhavani Peth, Gultekdi, Satara Road and Sinhagad Road. As many as 37 persons were injured in the incident.

Amol Chitale, who represented Mane in the Supreme Court, told The Indian Express over the phone, “Since the beginning, the defence’s plea was that at the time of committing the offence, Mane was not mentally stable and so Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code should have been applied. However, the trial court and the High Court had rejected this plea and had awarded the death penalty to him.” IPC’s Section 84 states that ‘nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.’ Chitale added, “In the Supreme Court, we continued our defence on the same tenet, that at the time of the offence, he was mentally unsound… this was brought to light from observations when he was under psychiatric evaluation for some days after the incident. Today, the Supreme Court has commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. The detailed judgement is yet to come.” Nishant Katneshwarkar, the standing counsel for the state of Maharashtra in the Supreme Court, said, “In our submission, we had opposed the defence’s plea of insanity. We argued that both the trial court and the High Court had considered the documents pertaining to the case and had rejected the plea that he was unstable.”

Advocate Dhananjay Mane from Solapur, who represented Mane in the trial court and also in the High Court, said, “It has been a long battle to prove that at the time of the incident, he was not in a sound state of mind. Police have tried all the ways to prove that he was not unstable. We welcome the Supreme Court’s verdict and will comment further after the detailed order.”

What Happened That Day

On the morning of January 25, 2012, some time after 7 am, Mane started the MSRTC bus using a ‘master key’. Then he started driving the bus on the wrong side of Shankar Sheth Road, towards Hotel Seven Loves, where he knocked down a vehicle. A local resident, who saw the incident, contacted the police control room at 8.05 am. Soon, two policemen on a motorcycle started chasing the bus. However, Mane continued to drive the bus at a high speed, and on the wrong side of the road in some stretches. He travelled about 15 km via Golibar Maidan, Bhavani Peth, Gultekdi, Maharashi Nagar, Satara Road, Mitramandal Chowk, Sarasbag, Sinhagad Road, knocking down two-wheelers, cars and pedestrians on the route. To stop the bus, Police Constable Deepak Kakade fired 10 rounds from his 9-mm carbine gun, but Mane did not stop. However, he was forced to slow down after the bus collided with two cars on Sinhagad Road. This helped local residents and police, who had given him chase, to overtake the vehicle and pull Mane out of the bus, at around 8.45 pm. Mane was taken into police custody and his victims were rushed to different hospitals in the city for treatment.

Mane’s ‘History of Illness’ 

While MSRTC officials claimed that Mane, a bus driver with the state transport service, was normal and had no history of medical problems, his wife and doctor had claimed that he was under stress and suffering from mental illness for the last two years. Mane was being treated by Dr Dilip Burate, a psychiatrist in Solapur. Speaking to the The Indian Express over the phone at the time, Burate had said, “Mane had come to me with complaints of hallucinations and was also saying many irrelevant things, as I remember the case and based on the documents that I have. He had come to me for a month… and I had given him medications. After that, he didn’t come.” When The Indian Express contacted Burate on Wednesday, he expressed his unwillingness to comment on the issue. Mane’s wife Sonali had said at the time of the incident, he was under severe stress due to work. “He had repeatedly requested the MSRTC not to give him driving duty on long routes. But he was forced to drive buses on long routes. He had faced problems earlier also due to work-related stress. So, he had also taken a month-long leave for treatment,” she had said at the time. Mane’s family members could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-commutes-santosh-manes-death-sentence-to-life-term-5531151/ (accessed 07 February 2019)

Supreme Court commutes death penalty of Chhattisgarh man

By Express News Service |New Delhi |Published: November 29, 2018 5:27:43 am

The Sessions Judge, Durg, had sentenced Verma to death in June 2013, holding it as a rarest of rare case. The Chhattisgarh High Court confirmed the sentence on April 11, 2014.

THE SUPREME Court on Wednesday commuted the death penalty imposed on a Chhattisgarh man convicted of killing three people and attempting to kill a fourth, saying the question whether the accused was capable of reformation was not considered at the time of trial. “No evidence as to the uncommon nature of the offence or the improbability of reformation or rehabilitation of the appellant has been adduced… Whether the person is capable of reformation and rehabilitation should also be taken into consideration while imposing death penalty,” a bench of Justices Kurian Joseph, Deepak Gupta and Hemant Gupta ruled while commuting appellant Chhannu Lal Verma’s sentence to life imprisonment.

The Sessions Judge, Durg, had sentenced Verma to death in June 2013, holding it as a rarest of rare case. The Chhattisgarh High Court confirmed the sentence on April 11, 2014. The incident dates back to October 19, 2011 when Verma entered the house of Anandram Sahu and caused fatal injuries to him, Sahu’s wife Firanteen Bai and daughter-in-law Ratna Sahu. He then entered another house and attacked a woman. The apex court relied on a certificate it received from the jail superintendent, which said that Verma’s conduct in jail had been good. “Thus, there is a clear indication that despite having lost all hope, no frustration has set on the appellant. On the contrary, there was a conscious effort on his part to lead a good life for the remaining period. A convict is sent to jail with the hope and expectation that he would make amends and get reformed. That there is such a positive change on a death row convict, in our view, should also weigh with the Court while taking a decision as to whether the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed,” the bench said.

Writing for the bench, Justice Joseph referred to the 1980 judgment of a Constitution bench in the Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab case in which the court had by a 4-1 majority laid down that the death penalty could only be imposed in rarest of rare cases. Justice Joseph wrote, “As held by the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh.it was the duty of the State to prove by evidence that the convict cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. That information not having been furnished by the State at the relevant time, the information now furnished by the State becomes all the more relevant. The standard set by the ‘rarest of rare’ test in Bachan Singh is a high standard. The conduct of the convict in prison cannot be lost sight of. The fact that the prisoner has displayed good behaviour in prison certainly goes on to show that he is not beyond reform.”

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-commutes-death-penalty-of-chhattisgarh-man-5469909/ (Accessed 25 December 2018)

SC heard seven death penalty appeals in 2016, confirmed none

Written by Utkarsh Anand |New Delhi |

Published: March 1, 2017 2:22:55 am 

In three cases, accused were acquitted; 397 on death row

INDICATING application of stringent tests before sending convicts to the gallows, the Supreme Court did not confirm the death penalty in any of the seven cases of criminal appeals that it decided in 2016. A year before, in 2015, the apex court had confirmed eight out of nine death penalty cases, including that of 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts convict Yakub Memon. According to a report compiled by the Centre on the Death Penalty, National Law University Delhi, not only did the court keep off awarding death penalty, it acquitted the accused in three out of the seven cases. While 71 cases of death sentences were pending in the apex court at the end of 2016, a total of 397 prisoners were on death row with their appeals pending either in high courts or in the Supreme Court as on December 31, 2016.

The Supreme Court of India. Photo: Ramesh Pathania/Mint

Uttar Pradesh topped the list of states with the highest number of death row prisoners at 70. It was followed by Maharashtra with 47, West Bengal 39 and Madhya Pradesh with 37. The report, made public on Tuesday, stated that 11 death row prisoners could not be classified state-wise since they were convicted under Central laws, such as the Arms Act. Only one person was sentenced to death in a rape and murder case by the SC in 2016 when it confirmed the extreme punishment at the stage of review, stated the report.

In 2016, trial courts across the country handed down the death sentence to 136 people, high courts confirmed punishment only in 15 cases in toto while the Supreme Court upheld none. Trial courts in 2015 had sentenced 70 convicts to death. More than 60 per cent of the cases in which courts awarded the death sentence were murder cases while 15 per cent were cases of murder and sexual assaults. President Pranab Mukherjee also took a call on seven mercy petitions moved by death row convicts in 2016 under Article 72 of the Constitution.

He rejected the mercy petitions of six prisoners, and commuted the death sentence of one convict. In the order of commutation, the President stated that the convict would spend the rest of his life in prison. Previous reports by the law university had said at least 62 per cent of death row inmates were first-time offenders; around 60 per cent had not completed secondary education; and nearly 75 per cent belong to economically weaker sections.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-heard-seven-death-penalty-appeals-in-2016-confirmed-none-4548782/ (Accessed 23 December 2018)

India apex court seeks proof in Kerala rape-murder case

Published: September 08, 2016 12:52

Akhel Mathew, Correspondent

Sensational case pertains to death of train traveler Soumya in February 2011.

Thiruvananthapuram: The sensational case of the rape and murder of a young woman train traveller in Kerala who was awaiting her marriage, took a dramatic turn on Thursday when India’s apex court sought clinching proof of the crime. The case pertains to the death of Soumya (23), daughter of Ganesh, a resident of Manjakkad near Shoranur in Palakkad district in February 2011.

Govindachamy

A lower court had convicted the accused, Govindachamy, a native of Tamil Nadu in the rape-murder case and handed him the death sentence. The prosecution’s claim was that Govindachamy entered the ladies’ compartment of the Shoranur-Kochi train in which Soumya was alone. Govindachamy was accused of accosting Soumya, who fell off the train and was seriously injured. He is then accused of carrying the injured Soumya to a railway track nearby, raping her and making off with her mobile phone and purse. When some passersby later found Soumya in an unconscious state, they took her to a hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries five days later. 

The Supreme Court asked for clinching proof of the crime, pointing out that while it was clear she had been raped, it was not clear whether she had been pushed out of the train or jumped on her own. The post mortem report said head injuries had led to her death, adding further doubt about the circumstance that actually led to her death. The court remarked that “guesswork” should not be brought before the court. The prosecution, however, could not immediately provide a satisfactory answer to the court’s queries.

Soumya

The court’s remarks came while considering a petition by Govindachamy demanding to annul the death sentence handed to him by the lower court. The Soumya murder case had turned the limelight on safety of women during train travel, particularly in ladies’ compartments in which there are times when there are only one or a few women in a compartment.

Source: https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-apex-court-seeks-proof-in-kerala-rape-murder-case-1.1893281 (Accessed 20 December 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) 

Death penalty: ‘Rarest of rare’ cases are not so rare in India now

INDIA Updated: Feb 05, 2016 12:53 IST

Satya Prakash 

Hindustan Times

The manner in which death penalty is being given in a large number of cases raises a serious question: are trial courts giving a go by to the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine

A West Bengal court’s verdict awarding death penalty to 11 convicts, including a Trinamool Congress leader, for the murder of a woman has raised questions over the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’ propounded by the Supreme Court. Aparna Bag, a resident of Ghughurgachi of Nadia district of West Bengal, was murdered by a group of people on November 13, 2014 over a land dispute. On Thursday, a court in Krishnanagar handed death sentence to the 11 accused.

Death penalty in India

In India, death penalty is prescribed for murder, gang robbery with murder, abetting the suicide of a child or insane person, waging war against the government and abetting mutiny by a member of the armed forces. Capital punishment is also awarded under some anti-terror laws for those convicted of terrorist activities.

Murder convicts get life imprisonment

Generally, courts award life imprisonment to convicts in a murder case. Only in “rarest of rare” cases, murder convicts are given death penalty. Death sentence is imposed on the convict only when the court comes to the conclusion that life imprisonment is inadequate having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was added to the Code in 1973, requires a judge to give “special reasons” for awarding death sentences. Capital punishment can be inflicted only in gravest cases of extreme culpability and in choosing the sentence the condition of the convict is also to be taken into account.

What is “rarest of rare”?

In 1980, in the Bachan Singh case, the Supreme Court propounded the “rarest of rare” doctrine and since then, life sentence is the rule and the death sentence the exception. There is no statutory definition of “rarest of rare”. It depends upon facts and circumstances of a particular case, brutality of the crime, conduct of the offender, previous history of his involvement in crime, chances of reforming and integrating him into the society etc.

Test for “rarest of rare”

The generally applied test while sentencing a convict to death is whether the survival of an orderly society demands extinction of life of the person who has committed the offence and whether failure to impose death sentence on him would bring to naught the sentence of death provided under Section 302 of IPC. Pre-planned, brutal, cold-blooded and sordid nature of a crime, without giving any chance to the victim, are generally taken into account to decide whether a particular case falls within the parameters of “rarest of rare”.

What does Supreme Court say?

“Death penalty should be imposed when collective conscience of the society is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability of otherwise of retaining death penalty,” said the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab. The crime has to be viewed from various angles – manner of commission of murder, motive for commission of murder, anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of crime and magnitude and personality of victim of murder.

Are trial courts following “rarest of rare” doctrine”?

But the manner in which death penalty is being given in a large number of cases raises a serious question. Are trial courts in India giving a go by to the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine? The question becomes all the more relevant because not all convicts awarded death penalty are executed in India. The number of death sentences pronounced has been very high despite the “rarest of rare” doctrine that limits the scope of awarding capital punishment. According to an Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) report — The State of Death Penalty in India 2013 — Uttar Pradesh topped the list with 370 death sentences, followed by Bihar (132). But sentences for 4,321 convicts were commuted from death penalty to life imprisonment during this period. This, of course, included many convicts who were given death penalty before 2001. The highest number of commutation — 2,462 — happened in Delhi, followed by Uttar Pradesh (458). But thousands of convicts still remain on the death row.

Huge gap between death sentence and actual execution

Data show there is a huge gap between death sentences pronounced and actual executions. According to an ACHR report based on National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, there have been several death sentences between 2001 and 2011, but only a few of these have actually been carried out. Indian courts awarded death penalty to 1,455 convicts from 2001-11, an average of around 132 convicts per year. But an overwhelming number of death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment during this period. The only convict to be executed during this period was Dhananjoy Chatterjee (2004) who was hanged for the murder and rape of a 14-year old girl in Kolkata. This was the country’s first execution since April 27, 1995, when Auto Shankar, a serial killer, was executed in Salem, Tamil Nadu. Thereafter, there have been only three executions – Mumbai terror attack case convict Ajmal Kasab in 2012, Parliament attack case convict Afzal Guru in 2013 and Mumbai serial blasts case convict Yakub Memon in 2015.

Is SC becoming averse to death penalty?

The president and governors are exercising the power “to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases”, given to them, under Articles 72 and 161, to save a fairly large number of convicts from the gallows. While the executive have been refusing mercy pleas of only terror convicts, judiciary is not following the same. Of late, the Supreme Court has refused to impose capital punishment in cases in which one would have expected it to send the convicts to the gallows. Many were surprised when the SC declined to award death sentence to the convicts in the Graham Staines, Jessica Lall and Priyadarshini Mattoo murder cases on the ground that these did not fall within the category of “rarest of rare”. It commuted the death penalty of Rajiv Gandhi’s killers to life imprisonment in February 2014 on the ground of inordinate delay in deciding their mercy pleas. A month later, it also commuted the death sentence of 1993 Delhi terror convict Devender Pal Singh Bhullar to life imprisonment on the grounds of delay in deciding his mercy petition and that he suffered from a mental illness.

Punishment is natural response to crime

This principle is almost universally accepted and that letting off criminals can result in vigilante justice. Also, the punishment has to be proportionate to the degree of wrongdoing and mitigating circumstances have to be considered while deciding the quantum of punishment.

Should India abolish death penalty?

India has been voting against a UN resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. But in effect, there has been a near moratorium on the death penalty in India. According to Amnesty International, in India, at least 100 people in 2007, 40 in 2006, 77 in 2005, 23 in 2002, and 33 in 2001 were sentenced, but not executed, to death. India’s figure is minuscule compared to China which executed thousands, Iran (1,663), Saudi Arabia (423), the US (220) and Pakistan (171) during 2007-12. 

Suhas Chakma

ACHR director and coordinator of the National Campaign for Abolition of Death Penalty in India, Suhas Chakma, says: “The sanctity of the rarest of rare doctrine has been eroded considerably and awarding death penalty has become routine for courts in India. “India should abolish death penalty altogether and join the comity of civilised nations that have done away with this extreme form of punishment,” says Chakma.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/rarest-of-rare-cases-are-not-so-rare-in-india-now/story-JxnTLyJ4tPlDBnHhatCcIL.html (Accessed on 20 December 2018)

SC Stays Gallows for Two Death Row Convicts in Rape, Murder Case

19 JANUARY 2016 Last Updated at 8:50 PM SOCIETY

The Supreme Court has stayed the the execution of two prisoners who were awarded death for raping and murder of a minor and a young executive in separate incidents in Mumbai and Delhi. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur issued notice to Delhi and Maharashtra governments and sought their replies on the appeals filed by the two condemned prisoners. The bench, also comprising justices A K Sikri and R Banumathi, stayed the execution of death sentence till the appeals of both the convicts - Vinod alias Chhotu from Delhi and Prakash Nishad from Mumbai, are decided.

The death sentence awarded to Vinod alias Chhotu was upheld by Delhi High Court on August 26, 2014 along with two other convicts for abducting, gangraping and killing a 19-year-old girl who was working in Gurgaon's Cyber City. Besides, Vinod alias Chhotu, the High Court has also upheld death sentence for two other convicts-- Rahul and Ravi--saying the crime and the criminal tests are satisfied in the case and death sentence can be awarded. Vinod approached the apex court against the conviction. The girl, was abducted by the trio in a car near her house in Qutub Vihar here and was gangraped and murdered by them on February 9, 2012.

Police while seeking death sentence for the trio had said that the victim's mutilated body was found three days after the incident from a field in Rodhai village in Haryana's Rewari district. It had said the convicts had poured acid into the victim's eyes and inserted a broken liquor bottle in her private parts.

In the case of Prakash Nishad, the death sentence was upheld by the Bombay High Court on November 18, 2015, for raping, sodomising and then brutally murdering a six-year-old girl in Bhayander, a Mumbai suburb, in 2010. On June 11, 2010, the minor girl, who lived with her family in Bhayander, went missing when she stepped out to play after dinner. The next day her naked body was found in the gutter. The police probe led to Nishad's house, where the investigators found blood-stained tiles in the room and clothes of the minor.

Source: https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/sc-stays-gallows-for-two-death-row-convicts-in-rape-murder-case/927497 (Accessed 19 December 2018)

Hanging an inhumane form of execution? SC wants Centre to reply in 3 weeks

IndiaToday.inNew DelhiOctober 6, 2017

UPDATED: October 6, 2017 19:39 IST

(With inputs from Anusha Sonia in New Delhi and PTI)

The Supreme Court asked the Centre to reply to a petition that seeks the abolition of hanging by the neck as a form of capital punishment.

Hanging by Noose (Picture only for representation)

Is hanging by the neck an inhumane form of execution that violates a death row convict's right to life? The Supreme Court wants the Centre to weigh in and opine on the question. The apex court's direction comes in a Public Interest Legislation filed opposing hanging as a form of capital punishment. The plea posits that the Indian Constitution's Article 21 (Right to Life) includes within it the right of a condemned prisoner to have a dignified mode of execution that ensures that death is less painful.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud heard the plea today and issued a notice to the Centre, seeking its response on the PIL in three weeks. The PIL, filed by lawyer Rishi Malhotra in his personal capacity, refers to previous Supreme Court judgements that have censured the practise of hanging to execute people convicted of capital crimes. The PIL, which also refers to a Law Commission report that has discussed in depth the forms of capital punishment, suggests shooting squads or lethal injections as alternative, more humane forms of executions. The Supreme Court, while observing that other scientific and less painful forms of execution could be used, asked the Centre to file its reply to the petition in three weeks.

Source: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/supreme-court-hanging-death-penalty-centre-1059226-2017-10-06 (Accessed on 18 December 2018)

Death penalty better than entire life in jail: SC on Rajiv Gandhi case

PTI New DelhiJuly 23, 2015 UPDATED: July 23, 2015 22:11 IST

The remarks came while hearing a petition of the Centre against Tamil Nadu government's decision to set free convicts of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case in which the court allowed states to exercise power of remission in certain class of cases.

The award of life imprisonment with a rider that it means "remainder of life" on Thursday came under sharp attack from the Supreme Court which said that it would be better to award death penalty to such convicts . All of us live in hope, if this is the prevailing situation then there will be no hope for such convicts. What is the point in keeping a man in jail for whole life... Give him the death sentence. That will be better," a five-judge constitutional bench, headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu, said. 

Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi

The remarks came while hearing a petition of the Centre against Tamil Nadu government's decision to set free convicts of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case in which the court allowed states to exercise power of remission in certain class of cases. During the hearing, the bench asked the Centre about the rationale behind providing life imprisonment till the death. "We follow the reformatory penal system," the bench said, adding that if there is no scope of remission, then why a convict, serving life term, would try to reform himself.

Source: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/supreme-court-on-rajiv-gandhi-killer-death-penalty-better-than-life-imprisonment-284285-2015-07-23 (Accessed on 18 December 2018)

SG tells SC death penalty constitution bench: No further mercy pleas after President's rejection

By IANS Thursday, 23 July 2015 12:40 Bar, Bench & Litigation

The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that after a mercy petition by a death row convict is rejected by the President, it cannot be moved afresh before the governor of a state unless there were entirely new grounds. Telling this to the Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice HL Dattu, Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar said that unless this was halted at some point, the President’s decision to reject a mercy petition would not attain finality.

Describing the law as “unsound”, the Solicitor General told the court that a death row convict may move the governor on fresh grounds but it will not be backed by law. The Solicitor General made the submission after he was asked whether a death row convict could seek mercy from the governor for the second time. The question raised by the bench assumes significance in the wake of a fresh mercy petition filed by 1993 Mumbai bomb blast death row convict Yakub Memon before the Maharashtra governor after his curative petition was rejected by the apex court on Tuesday.

Finding some ambiguity in the procedure, the court asked the Solicitor General if it should lay guidelines in this regard or was there a procedure formulated by the home ministry. The Solicitor General said that after the executive actions - the President or governor deciding on a mercy petition - and the apex court deciding the matter and commuting the death sentence, there should be no further question of remission of sentence of the convict. The bench was hearing a reference by a three-judge bench on the question whether after the commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment, the state government could further grant remission of sentence to release the assassins of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi.

One of the seven questions framed by the bench of then chief justice P Sathasivam, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice NV Ramana in their April 25, 2014, judgment was whether after commutation of the death sentence, the government can go further granting them remission and releasing them. The question was rooted in the conflicting positions taken by the Centre and the Tamil Nadu governments on whether Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins or similarly placed convicts be granted remission and consequent release. The Constitution bench was further asked to examine whether there could be a special category wherein after death penalty has been commuted, such a convict is put beyond the applicability of remission of sentence and he would remain behind bars in excess of a life term of 14 years.

Source: https://www.legallyindia.com/Bar-Bench-Litigation/sg-tells-sc-death-penalty-constitution-bench-no-further-mercy-pleas-after-president-s-rejection (Accessed on 18 December 2018)

ACHR’s comparative study uncovers flaws in Indian system of awarding death sentence

Submitted by TwoCircles.net on 28 May 2015 - 11:20pm

By A Mirsab, TwoCircles.net,

Mumbai: In an attempt to advocate abolition of death penalty in India, the Asian Centre For Human Rights (ACHR) has, in a report, criticized the arbitrariness in awarding death sentences by the Indian judiciary and has categorically pinpointed flaws in sentencing death under the name of ‘conscience’.

The 77 page report released on May 25 ‘India: Death in the name of conscience’ examines the imposition of death penalty to convicts in the name of “collective conscience of the society”, which is often interpreted as the “judicial conscience.”

The report is being published as part of the ACHR’s “National Campaign for Abolition of Death Penalty in India” – a project funded by the European Commission under the European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy – the European Union’s programme that aims to promote and support human rights and democracy worldwide.

ACHR report front page

The report specifically examines (i) manufacturing of ‘conscience’ to justify death sentence, (ii) the use of ‘conscience’ in the judgements imposing death penalty which have already been declared as per incuriam by the Supreme Court, (iii) how ‘conscience’, “which varies from judge to judge depending upon his attitudes and approaches, his predilections and prejudices, his habits of mind and thought and in short all that goes with the expression social philosophy,” plays out as to whether an accused charged with an offence punishable with death shall live or die, and (iv) inconsistency of the Indian judiciary while considering the factors and circumstances to determine between life and death in a capital punishment case.

The report is prepared after meticulous study of 48 Supreme Court judgements on death penalty pronounced by two distinguished former judges of the Supreme Court viz. Justice M B Shah and Justice Arijit Pasayat, who are currently serving respectively as chairperson and vice chairperson of the Special Investigation Team on Black Money appointed by the Supreme Court of India, to illustrate how ‘conscience’ of individual judges play out the ‘collective conscience’ and/or ‘judicial conscience’.

Per incuriam is a Latin term which means “through lack of care”. It refers to a judgement of a court that has been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgement which would have been relevant. The significance of a judgement having been decided per incuriam is that it does not then have to be followed as precedent by a lower court.

Out of the 33 death penalty cases adjudicated by Justice Arijit Pasayat examined by Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR), Justice Pasayat

(i) confirmed death sentence in 15 cases, including four cases in which lesser sentences were enhanced to death sentence and two cases in which acquittal by the High Courts were turned to death sentence,

(ii) upheld acquittal in eight cases,

(iii) commuted death sentence in seven cases and

(iv) remitted three cases back to the High Courts to once again decide on quantum of sentence as death penalty had not been imposed by the High Courts.

Interestingly, out of the 16 cases in which death penalty was confirmed by Justice Pasayat, five cases have since been declared as per incuriam by the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, Justice M B Shah did not confirm death sentence in any of the 15 cases of death penalty adjudicated by him. He rather commuted death sentence in 12 cases, did not enhance life imprisonment into death penalty in any case, did not alter acquittal by the High Courts into death penalty in any case, did not remit back any case to the High Courts on the quantum of sentence and did not deliver a single judgement, which was declared as per incuriam. He acquitted convicts in three cases out of which he passed dissenting judgements against imposition of death penalty in two cases.

Comparison tables

By comparing the reasoning of these two judges while dealing with death sentences, the report tries to prove how in India death sentence has become ‘judge-centric’.

The report says, “Whether an accused shall live or die has become essentially a matter of luck,” adding, similar disputation at other place: “It is troubling as it makes the life and death of a person dependent on sophisticated judicial lottery. These inconsistencies stand exposed on perusal and analysis of various judgements of the Supreme Court”.

Countering the main ground of ‘conscience’ in awarding death sentence, it says, “The reliance on ‘conscience’ for imposition of death penalty is deeply flawed, fraught with malafides at every stage, and is often manufactured through scapegoating of the dispensable i.e. the poor, socially disadvantaged and those accused of terror offences.” It added further, “They are often unable to defend themselves in all stages, most notably at the stage of the trial held under intense local social pressure, media trial and hostile environment.”

In regards with the terrorism related offences, the report says justice system has developed a clear precedent whereby the investigating agencies and prosecutors present evidence gathered under special laws such as TADA in trials conducted under the IPC to extract maximum punishment and the Courts embolden by ‘collective conscience’ have accepted the same without any qualm.

“This is nothing but abuse of the law driven by the desire for retribution in order to satisfy the so called ‘collective conscience’ rather than meeting the basic requirements of justice,” it speaks out for terror offences convictions.

In addition, it says, some crimes such as the ones against women and children are so gruesome and become politically significant in the light of massive public outrage that it almost becomes indispensable for the state/prosecution to find the guilty, even if it means tweaking justice, to assuage public anger.

As evidence it relies upon the documentary released in November 2013 on Arivu, in which the former Superintendent of Police of the CBI P V Thiagarajan admitted that he had manipulated Arivu’s confessional statement in order to join the missing links in the narrative of the conspiracy in order to secure convictions.

Listing much arbitrariness in various judgments dealing with death penality, it says Arbitrariness has been one of the grounds for declaring many laws as unconstitutional across the world and death sentences have been abolished on this ground alone in other countries such as South Africa.

“The situation and factors that were taken into consideration by the South African Constitutional Court for determining arbitrariness is not dissimilar to India – the mirror reflection is possibly worse in India. If death penalty can be declared unconstitutional on the ground of arbitrariness in South Africa, there is no reason why it should be constitutional in India,” the report concludes.

Asian Centre for Human Rights endeavors to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Asian region by undertaking range of activities. Details of their activities can be find at its website www.achrweb.org.

Source: http://twocircles.net/2015may28/1432835422.html#.VWwX4M-qpHy [last accessed 01.06.2015]

Courts cannot give death sentence in haste: Supreme Court

PTI New Delhi, May 28, 2015 | UPDATED 10:47 IST

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that right to life does not end with the confirmation of the death sentence, observing that the basis to the right to dignity also extends to the death row convicts.

The apex court said this while it quashed the execution warrants of a young woman and her lover, convicted for killing seven members of her family including a 10-month-old baby in Uttar Pradesh in 2008, noting that it was issued "in haste" by giving a go-by to mandatory guidelines.

Supreme Court India

The court said the Sessions Judge of Amroha issued the warrants for execution of death sentence on May 21 "in haste", just six days after confirmation of conviction and capital punishment, without waiting for mandatory 30 days to allow the convicts to avail judicial remedy of filing petitions for a review of the May 15 judgement.

The convicts, Shabnam and her lover Saleem, could also approach the Uttar Pradesh Governor with mercy petitions after exhausting the legal remedies, it noted. "We find that the death warrant was signed by the Sessions Judge in haste without waiting for the convicts to exhaust the available legal remedies," a bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and U U Lait said while noting that there were judgements of both the apex court and the Allahabad High Court which mandated the authorities to follow certain guidelines to protect the "dignity" of the convicts.

"Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not end with the confirmation of the death sentence. The basis to the right to dignity also extends to the death row convicts. Therefore, the sentence of death has to be executed with total dignity. "That is why there are many judgements mandating the manner in which the death sentence has to be executed," the bench said and added that, "therefore the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court for execution of death sentence is in consonance with Article 21".

Among the mandatory guidelines are that the death-row convicts have the right to meet their family members. The guidelines are intended to make the execution least painful. "We, therefore, direct the respondents (authorities) to follow the procedure and guidelines laid down in the judgements of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court. "We set aside the warrants issued by the Sessions Judge on May 21 for the execution of the death sentence," the bench said.
Source: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/supreme-court-death-sentence-right-to-life-dignity/1/440676.html (last accessed 29.05.2015)

Yakub Memon: A Question Of Life And Death

By Megha Bahl & Sharmila Purkayastha

29 April, 2015

Pudr.org

PUDR notes with extreme concern the Supreme Court's decision on the 9th of April 2015, to reject Yakub Memon’s petition seeking review of his death sentence. This decision will only add another chapter to the growing instances of injustice perpetrated by the State. In the name of providing relief for those killed in the heinous Bombay blasts of 1993 one finds a punishment based on selective targeting and prejudice.

Certain facts need to be recalled to show as to why the fear of such an eventuality is real. The grounds on which the TADA court proclaimed Yakub as one of the chief conspirators and decided upon the quantum of punishment remains mired in controversy. Charged with financing arms training for young boys in Pakistan and purchase of certain vehicles, the question as to whether the charges qualify Yakub Memon to be treated on par with the likes of Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon, the main accused behind the blasts, remains. The fact that Tiger Memon, was his elder brother seems to have become the more aggravating factor justifying the death sentence awarded to him by the TADA court and the Supreme Court of India.

It may be recalled that Yakub Memon had chosen to come back to India, much against the wishes of Tiger Memon, when he was arrested by the Indian authorities in 1994. Confident that the legal system would provide him and his family the necessary relief, he cooperated with the authorities in the course of the trial. It is a fact that of the 123 accused, Yakub Memon was the only one to have been awarded a death sentence in the case. In fact in its order of 21st March 2013, the Supreme Court while commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment for 10 other accused, declined to do the same for Yakub Memon. For the Court, Yakub’s decision to surrender, his good behaviour inside the prison and twenty long years of incarceration were of no consequence, in deciding upon a matter involving a question of life and death.

The rejection reflects poorly on not just the judicial system but the entire administrative machinery, that has failed to bring to justice the main perpetrators of anti Muslim carnage in December 1992 and January 1993, despite the Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry identifying a host of police officers and politicians belonging to Shiv Sena for their role. The selective pursuit of those who perpetrated heinous crimes and/or non-pursuit of mass murders perpetrated by right wing Hindutvadis or uniformed personnel, has regrettably become the hallmark of our criminal justice system which treats killings by Muslims as “acts of terrorism” whilst regular crimes by Hindus are often not pursued. To uphold death penalty for Yaqub Menon, therefore, because of his kinship with the main perpetrators who remain at large and for a crime in which his role is peripheral, is nothing short of murdering justice as it is solely a subjective decision of the Judges.

It is also imperative to ask as to what justice will be served through the execution of death sentence on Yakub Memon whose ‘crime’ appears to be his kinship to main perpetrators? Such regressive judicial pronouncement yet again convinces us that death penalty is not only irrational but it also fraught with irreversibility which PUDR finds abhorrent. Globally, there is a move within countries to progressively do away with this regressive form of punishment. PUDR therefore urges the authorities including the judiciary in this case that in the interests of justice to commute his sentence and in light of his 21 year long incarceration to release him. And in keeping with the principles of equality before law and natural justice, the accused of 1992- 1993 massacres must be tried and convicted.

Megha Bahl and Sharmila Purkayastha

(Secretaries, PUDR)

www.pudr.org

Source: http://www.countercurrents.org/pudr290415.htm [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Supreme Court Confirms Death Sentence of a Woman and Her Lover for Killing 7 Members of Her Family

All India | Written by A Vaidyanathan | Updated: April 30, 2015 22:07 IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today upheld the death penalty given to a woman and her lover for killing seven members of her family including a 10-month-old child. The convicts - Saleem and Shabnam - had wanted to marry. But Shabnam's family was opposed to it. The duo drugged Shabnam's entire family and then hacked them to death on April 15, 2008, in Almora District of Uttar Pradesh.

They had been given the death penalty, and had appealed against it in the top court. Dismissing the appeals, Chief Justice of India HL Dattu said, "You (Shabnam) are also a mother. But you didn't show any mercy or affection to your family. Even you killed 10-month-old baby of your brother. We can't grant any relief."

Those killed were Shaukat Ali (60), his wife Hashmi (55), their son Anees Ahmed Khan (35), his wife Anjum (25), brother Rashid (22), niece Rabia (14) and Anees's son Arsh (10 months). While six of them were hacked to death, the toddler was throttled. According to the prosecution, while Shabnam held the drugged, Saleem hacked them to death with an axe. The incident took place in Bawankhera village of Amroha. Both were convicted and awarded death sentence by a trial court on July 15, 2010. The Allahabad High Court in April 2013 confirmed the death sentence, after which the duo appealed in the Supreme Court.

Source: http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/supreme-court-confirms-death-sentence-of-a-woman-and-her-lover-for-killing-7-members-of-her-family-759604 [last accessed 28.05.2015]

1993 Mumbai serial blasts case: SC dismisses plea of Yakub Memon seeking review of death sentence

Amit Anand Choudhary,TNN | Apr 9, 2015, 10.45 AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed plea of Yakub Memon, seeking review of death sentence awarded to him in 1993 Mumbai blasts case. The apex court order paves the way for Memon's execution, which was stayed after he filed review petition in the Supreme Court. Memon is the sole death convict in 1993 blasts case, in which around 257 lost their lives after a series of bomb blasts rocked Mumbai. Memon's case was that the courts have not given any special reasons for sending him to the gallows. The apex court had in 2013 commuted death sentence of 10 convicts who had parked explosives—laden vehicles at various places in Mumbai, to life term by distinguishing their roles from that of Memon.

Dealing with the case of Memon, a chartered accountant by profession and brother of proclaimed offender Tiger Memon, the court had said he was the "driving force" and a "mastermind" behind the blasts. The designated trial court under the repealed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act had in 2006 held Memon guilty of criminal conspiracy and financing air tickets to send co-conspirators for arms and RDX training to Pakistan. The conviction was based almost entirely on retracted confessions of the approvers and other co-accused. Memon, who sources said, is not keeping good health and is under medication in Nagpur jail, had sought commutation of the death penalty also on the grounds that he cannot be punished twice for the same offence since he has already served 20 years in prison.

Memon has been in solitary confinement in a separate cell in Nagpur jail since his conviction in 2006. Prior to that, during trial, he was in Mumbai's Arthur Road jail since his return to India with his family to surrender in 1994. Neither Yakub nor any other member of his family confessed in the case. A constitution bench had earlier said a review plea must be given a hearing in an open court, and Memon sought just that. Over 250 people died and more than 700 were injured in the blasts. Yakub's parents, his three brothers and sister-in-law had returned to India with him and were all tried. While his wife, mother and brother Suleiman were acquitted, Yakub, two brothers Essa and Yusuf and sister-in-law Rubeena were convicted and sentenced.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/1993-Mumbai-serial-blasts-case-SC-dismisses-plea-of-Yakub-Memon-seeking-review-of-death-sentence/articleshow/46859691.cms [last accessed 09 April 2015]