Death Sentence of Deosthali mother and daughter commuted

The Bombay High Court has commuted the death sentence of Deosthali mother and daughter from Pune who have been convicted for murder of a doctor from Pune.

The Women had conducted their own trial and during the appeal also had argued themselves inspite of the High Court appointing an amicus curae in the matter.

We will try to upload the judgement as soon as it is on the Bombay High Court website.

Waiting on death row: a cruel punishment

The Supreme Court in a land mark judgement in Jagdish Vs. State of M.P. delivered on 18 Sept 2009 by the bench of Justice Bedi and Justice Panchal has held that the death sentence of persons who are on death row for a very long time should be commuted. The judgement has stated that there are cases where the persons are on death row since more than 10 years. The Supreme Court in its judgement states that, 'The power of the President and the Governor to grant pardon etc. under Articles 72 and 161 of our Constitution though couched in imperative terms, has nevertheless to be exercised on the advice of the executive authority. In this background, it is the Government which, in effect, exercises that power. The condemned prisoner and his suffering relatives have, therefore, a very pertinent right in insisting that a decision in the matter be taken within a reasonable time, failing which the power should be exercised in favour of the prisoner. We, as Judges, remain largely unaware as to the reasons that ultimately bear with the Government in taking a decision either in favour of the prisoner or against him but whatever the decision it should be on sound legal principles related to the facts of the case. We must, however, say with the greatest emphasis, that human beings are not chattels and should not be used as pawns in furthering some larger political or government policy. We may hark back to our own experiences in life. Even a matter as mundane or trivial as the impending result of an examination or the report of a medical test arising out of suspicion of a serious disease, or the fate of a loved one who has gone missing or a person hanging between life and death on account of a severe injury, makes it impossible for a person to maintain his equanimity or normal way of life. Contrast this with the plight of a prisoner who has been under a sentence of death for 15 years or more living on hope but engulfed in fear as his life hangs in balance and in the hands of those who have no personal interest in his case and for whom he is only a name. Equally, consider the plight of the family of such a prisoner, his parents, wife and children, brothers and sisters, who too remain static and in a state of limbo and are unable to get on with life on account of the uncertain fate of a loved one. What makes it worse for the prisoner is the indifference and ennui which ultimately develops in the family, brought about by a combination of resignation, exhaustion, and despair. What may be asked is the fault of these hapless individuals and should they be treated in such a shabby manner.

14. The observations reproduced above become extremely relevant as of today on account of the pendency of 26 mercy petitions before the President of India, in some cases, where the Courts had awarded the death sentences more than a decade ago. We, too, take this opportunity to remind the concerned Governments of their obligations under the aforementioned statutory and Constitutional provisions.

15. Those of us who have had the occasion to inspect a Jail where executions are carried out have first hand knowledge of the agony and horror that a condemned prisoner undergoes every day. The very terminology used to identify such prisoners - death row in-mates, or condemned prisoners, with their even more explicit translations in the vernacular - tend to remind them of their plight every moment of the day. In addition to the solitary confinement and lack of privacy with respect to even the daily ablutions, the rattle on the cell door heralding the arrival of the Jailor with the prospect as the harbinger of bad news, a condemned prisoner lives a life of uncertainty and defeat. In one particular prison, the horror was exacerbated as the gallows could be seen over the wall from the condemned cells. The effect on the prisoners on seeing this menacing structure each morning during their daily exercise in the courtyard, can well be imagined. To cap it all, some of these prisoners, sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge in a case of multiple murders, were later acquitted by the High Court in appeal for lack of evidence.'

Considering the observations made by the Apex Court the government must commute all the death sentences to life immediately.

Waiting on death row: a cruel punishment

Shared via AddThis

Death Sentence Confirmed for one in Nithari case...

The Allahabad High Court the death sentence of Koli in the appeal filed against the order sessions court in one of the Nithari cases. At the same time the high Court has acquitted Pandher the employer of Koli in whose house the dead bodies were found.

Source : The Hindu - 12 September 2009

Revisiting the death penalty

Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily’s observation that the country should move towards the abolition of capital punishment is clear evidence of recognition in principle at the highest quarters that there can be no rational justification for that extreme penalty in a democratic state. His view is representative of the current thinking across the world. Even if states are still some distance from deleting the barbaric punishment from the statute, they have surely moved towards a de facto moratorium on the practice. Out of step with this trend, however, is the Supreme Court of India’s 1983 judgment that upheld capital sentence for the rarest of rare crimes, a decision that clearly warrants a review. Another compelling reason for revisiting that ruling is the recourse by retentionist states to methods of execution that are less cruel, humiliating, and degrading (such as the lethal injection) than hanging, adopted in India. Significantly, the legal challenge in the United States Supreme Court to the lethal injection has over the years thrown light on how the physical and mental state of convicts (when the dose is administered) entails serious violation of their human rights.

Although Indian law prescribes the death penalty for crimes such as murder, abetting mutiny by members of the armed forces, and waging war against the government, it is in cases perceived as particularly gruesome and politically sensitive that the extreme punishment is awarded. However, those who seek to take the high ground on national security contend that conviction related to terrorist crimes should be treated as a class apart, implying that it should automatically attract the death penalty. The Gujarat government has, following the recent spate of deaths, proposed to make a law prescribing death penalty for manufacturing and purveying spurious liquor. The demand to apply the penalty for various other crimes could weigh heavily on the outcome of the Presidential clemency petitions pending consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Besides, India cannot be oblivious to the growing international trend against executions. The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence in a number of cases although the lower judiciary has tended to hand it down more readily in recent years. Mr. Moily’s remarks provide room for optimism over the prospect of abolition in the not too distant future.

(Source: The Hindu 31st July 2009)

Contract killer’s death penalty converted to life imprisonment

New Delhi, Aug 31 (IANS) The Delhi High Court Monday converted the sentence of a contract killer who had killed a witness six years ago from death penalty to life imprisonment on the grounds that the case did not fall in the category of rarest of the rare. Mani Gopal had murdered the witness, an eunuch, inside the Tis Hazari court premises in 2003 when she was going to record her evidence in a murder case.

Geeta Hazi, a resident of Rajouri Garden in Delhi, had allegedly hired Gopal to eliminate Neelam as there was a dispute between them over control of areas for collection of donations and gifts on auspicious occasions. The accused had fired three shots at Neelam, killing her on the spot. The police arrested Gopal instantly and seized the weapon.

Hazi had earlier in 2002 allegedly hired another killer to eliminate Neelam. But instead of killing Neelam, the killer murdered another eunuch. However, the court had acquitted the contract killer in a separate trial for want of evidence.

A division bench comprising of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Indermeet Kaur said: “Keeping in view the fact that the crime committed by Gopal is more than a murder of an ordinary category, we hold that the instant case falls in the category where the appropriate sentence to be imposed is of imprisonment for life with a direction that Gopal would not be considered for being granted remission till he undergoes an actual sentence of 20 years.” The bench said that by killing the witness the accused had “polluted the stream of justice”.

The court while converting the death penalty to life imprisonment ruled: “To attract the penalty of death, it has to be established that the case falls in the category of the rarest of the rare. “Witnesses being threatened, intimidated or bought over has been plaguing the criminal justice delivery system in India to such an extent that in the eyes of the public the system itself has come under trial.

“The existence of the state is dependent upon a good, effective and efficient criminal justice delivery system. If the same fails, the citizens would settle their disputes in private and the rule of law would cease to exist,” the court said.

Source: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/contract-killers-death-penalty-converted-to-life-imprisonment_100240865.html accessed on 1st September 2009)

SC for fewer death sentences

Pushes For Objectivity & Less Harsh Alternative Before Extreme Penalty

New Delhi: Naysayers to death penalty can take heart. A 30-year-old SC judgment laying down “rarest of rare case” guidelines on imposition of death penalty may soon see further tightening that could make award of capital punishment an absolute rare phenomenon.

In a recent order, the Supreme Court said judges, while awarding death penalty in mechanical consonance with the 1980 ‘Bachan Singh’ judgment, appear to have lost sight of vital ingredients—“the lesser alternative (life imprisonment) is unquestionably foreclosed” and “objective fairness standards”. These two ingredients must essentially be fulfilled by judges before awarding death penalty, but have not been complied with diligently in the recent past, said a bench of Justices S B Sinha (since retired) and M K Sharma.

Extremely concerned by the varying interpretation of the “rarest of rare case” guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh judgment, the apex court said time had come for an attempt towards deciphering a common view on this to usher in “some objectivity to the precedent on death penalty which is crumbling down under the weight of disparate interpretations”. “We may come across instances where the case may belong to the rarest of rare category, but in court’s view the ‘objective fairness standards’ necessary to be met before death penalty can be awarded have not been complied with diligently,” the bench said.

The judgment came in a case in which the apex court upheld the life sentence awarded to Mohd Farooq Abdul Gafur and others in the 1999 murder attempt on Shiv Sena leader Milind Vaidya. Though Vaidya escaped with injuries, the bullets fired by the assailants killed three. It took note of the concern of legal commentators that while the rich and powerful never got the extreme penalty, “it is invariably the marginalised and destitute who suffer extreme penalty ultimately”.

To support the need for further tightening of the death penalty system, Justice Sinha said if a person was given life imprisonment and later found to be innocent, he could be released from prison though the state would not be able to compensate the time he lost in prison. “Such a reversal is not possible where a person has been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. The execution of the sentence of death in such cases makes miscarriage of justice irrevocable. It is a finality which cannot be corrected,” he said.

The court was aware of the swinging fortunes of an accused in the three-tier justice delivery system, where a trial court verdict is reversed by the high courts and in turn the SC upturns an HC judgment. “Swinging fortunes of the accused on the issue of determination of guilt and sentence at the hands of the criminal justice system is something which is perplexing for us when we speak of fair trial,” Justice Sinha said expressing his views on death sentence.

(Source: Times of India
19th August 2009
Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN)

‘We should hang Home Minister’

The HC is currently hearing the appeal against the death sentence awarded to Leena (r) and Deepti Deosthali(l) for the 2006 murder of Dr Deepak Mahajan

Miffed that police could not record ransom calls made in Dr Mahajan murder case due to faulty machinery, Bombay High Court says the government’s lax attitude is to blame for ill-equipped force

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the State Government for failing to equip the police well enough to investigate crimes.The Division Bench of Justice JN Patel and Mrudula Bhatkar was hearing the appeal against the death sentence awarded by the Pune sessions court to Leena Deosthali and her daughter Deepti, the two women accused in the Dr Deepak Mahajan murder case.

The judges were irked when the prosecution admitted that the transcripts of the ransom calls made to the deceased doctor’s family during his kidnapping were not available, as the police machinery tapping the phones was faulty and could not record the conversations.

Justice Patel noted that the police force is ill-equipped because of the lax attitude of the government. Citing the example of the unavailability of bulletproof jackets for officers during the Mumbai terror attacks, he remarked, “Because they (police) are not provided with the necessary equipment, we have to suffer events like 26/11.” He held the Home Department responsible for the flaws in police investigations and quipped, “We should hang the Minister for Home.”

Advocate Ashok Mundergi assured the court on behalf of the prosecution that satisfactory answers would be given over the lapses in police investigations pointed out by the court.

FAST TRACK INJUSTICE

The Division Bench was also especially peeved to find that the Pune sessions court had not examined key witnesses such as the police sketch artist who first prepared a sketch of the two accused. Arguing for the prosecution, advocate Ashok Mundergi told the court that lack of time in a fast track trial did not allow the court to wait for the sketch artist, who was unavailable at the time of summons. Justice Patel responded, “A fast track trial does not mean you deliver a judgment without examining witnesses just because it has to be fast track. It is against the principles of justice. In that case, there is no point in having fast track courts.”

THE CASE SO FAR

The Pune sessions court in 2007 found Leena and Deepti Deosthali guilty of the 2006 murder of Dr Deepak Mahajan, and awarded the mother-daughter duo the death sentence. The HC began hearing the appeal last August. Earlier this year, the case was sent back to the Pune sessions court for cross-examination of 25 of the 46 witnesses, as the accused did not have a lawyer in the sessions court. However, the Pune court upheld the sentence. The Deosthalis are currently lodged in the Byculla women’s jail and have refused a lawyer for the HC hearings as well. However, the court has appointed Rohini Salian as the amicus curiae.

(Source: MUMBAI MIRROR BUREAU
19th August 2009)