Death sentence: How the ropes used in EXECUTION are tested?

Dailybhaskar.com | May 28, 2015, 11:10AM IST

New Delhi: Supreme Court has said that convicts can't be hanged secretly and hurriedly. The apex court has ruled that the execution of death sentence cannot be carried out in an arbitrary, hurried and secret manner without allowing death row convicts all legal remedies and meet family members.

A lot of efforts are made to ensure that execution is carried out in accordance with the law. It is highly important the rope used in the execution is of top quality and tested before the execution.

Here are the details given in 'Consultation paper on mode of execution of death sentence' by Law Commission of India: 

A Manilla rope one inch in diameter shall be used for executions. At least two such ropes in serviceable condition shall be maintained at every jail where executions are liable to take place.

The rope should be 19 feet in length, well twisted, and fully stretched. It should be of equal thickness, capable of passing readily through the noose-ring and sufficiently strong to bear a strain of 280 lbs. with a 7 foot drop.

Source: http://daily.bhaskar.com/news/NAT-TOP-death-sentence-supreme-court-on-death-sentence-rights-of-prisoner-in-india-5006208-PHO.html [last accessed 29.05.2015]

Dharna in Hyderabad againt Morsi death sentence, today 4-6 PM

Thursday, 28 May 2015

Hyderabad, May 28:

Egypt is one of the five great civilizations of the world. The great pyramids, the light house of Alexandria are among the Seven Wonders of the World. Egypt became independent after the withdrawal of British forces in the year 1953.Since its independence, till the year 2011, the State was ruled by dictators and had become the land of conflicts and wars.

The dictators bred corruption and poverty, abused power in their tenure. Therefore the unrest and uprising started in the year 2010, which ultimately threw out the tyrant Hosni Mubarak on 11th Feb, 2011. Dr. Mohammed Morsi was the first civilian president, democratically elected on June 2012 with share of 51.7% of casted votes and winning with a margin of over 10 lakhs Votes. Dr. Mohammed Morsi has done his Doctorate in material science and was professor in university of California. He was elected as the Member of Parliament for the year 2000-2005 and become the chairperson of freedom and justice party of Egypt. President Mohammed Morsi visited India from 18th to 21st March, 2013 and signed many trade agreements. Trade between India & Egypt increased by 30% because of these agreements. The Military dictators never tolerated the rise of civilian power and therefore a military coup was done on 3rd July, 2013 unseating the first democratically elected civilian president.

The Conflict between dictatorship and democracy did not end even after the military coup. On 21 April, 2015 the dictator’s court sentenced Morsi to 20 years in prison on certain baseless allegations and again the same court sentenced Dr. Mohammed Morsi to Death. The death sentence to Mr. Mohammed Morsi is not just a penalty to an individual but the verdict of the court can be considered as the death of the democracy. We cannot allow the dictators to overpower the democratic forces. We cannot allow the puppets of imperialist and capitalist forces to crush the people’s movement in any part of the world therefore it is the time to unite the democratic forces and the people’s movement of the world, to come together against the imperialist, capitalist and anti-people forces and their puppets.

A protest and Dharna in Hyderabad is being organized on 28th May 2015 at Indra Park between 4pm to 6pm by all civil society organizations, political organizations and rights activists to show solidarity with Dr. Mohammed Morsi and protest against the death sentence given to him.

Source: http://www.siasat.com/english/news/dharna-hyderabad-againt-morsi-death-sentence-today-4-6-pm (last accessed 29.05.2015)

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)

India: Death in the name of conscience

ACHR PRESS RELEASE

"India: Death in the name of conscience” released today 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 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) inconsitency of the Indian judiciary while considering the factors and circumstances to determine between life and death in a capital punishment case. 

In the post Bachan Singh judgement which upheld constitutional validity of death penalty in 1980, there has not been a single judgement including those declared as per incuriam in which ‘collective conscience’ of the society and/or ‘judicial conscience’ have not been used to justify imposition of death penalty.

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. 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. For terror-related offences, it will not be an understatement to assert that a clear precedent has been set in India wherein justice system is tweaked by the desire for retribution in order to satisfy the socalled ‘collective conscience’ rather than meeting the basic requirements of justice. In addition, 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. That the public anger, as shown against the Nithari killings and Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, is equally directed against the failure of the State and the system as much against the crimes and the criminals, is often forgotten.

The report examines 48 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’. 

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 4 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 8 cases, (iii) commuted death sentence in 7 cases and (iv) remitted 3 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. It is pertinent to mention that out of the 16 cases in which death penalty were confirmed by Justice Pasayat, 5 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. 

Out of these 48 cases, three cases i.e. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Anr, Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar etc and Lehna v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court benches comprised Justice A Pasayat and Justice M B Shah along with Justice B N Agrawal. In Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and Krishna Mochi & Ors, the majority view comprising Justice Pasayat and Justice Agrawal confirmed death sentence on all the accused in both the cases. Justice Shah, on the other hand, acquitted Bhullar and altered the death sentence on Krishna Mochi, Nanhe Lal Mochi and Bir Kuer Paswan to life imprisonment and further acquitted Dharmendra Singh. However, there was no disagreement between Justice Shah and Justice Pasayat in commutation of death sentence in Lehna v. State of Haryana. 

Though consideration of the aggravating circumstances relating to the crime and mitigating circumstances relating to the criminal as enunciated in BachanSingh judgement cannot be deduced to a zero sum game, the inconsistency in consideration of these circumstances by the judiciary is all pervasive. These inconsistencies stand exposed on perusal and analysis of various judgements of the Supreme Court, inter alia, (i) relating to consideration of convict’s young age for commutation of death penalty, (ii) the benefit of possible reformation or rehabilitation as a ground for commutation of death penalty, (iii) acquittal or life sentence awarded by the High Courts as a ground for commutation, and (iv) circumstantial evidence as a mitigating factor for commutation of death sentence. 

Arbitrariness was the ground for declaring death penalty provided under Section 277 of the Criminal Procedure Act of South Africa as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the case of State v. Makwanyano & Anr. 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.[Ends]

Source: http://www.achrweb.org/press/2015/IND03-2015.html [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Explained: In the Supreme Court, some questions of Life and Death

SC will hear Monday petitions challenging death warrants issued against Amroha couple Shabnam and Salim, who killed 7 of her family in 2008. 

Written by Utkarsh Anand | Published on:May 27, 2015 12:53 am

UTKARSH ANAND examines the laws, rules and issues around the death penalty, and the circumstances warranting execution in India.

Which crimes entail capital punishment in India?

Grave offences such as murder, rape with injuries that may result in the death of a victim and a repeat offender, waging war against the State, and terrorism-related offences causing death are some major crimes punishable with death under the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, there are provisions under The Arms Act, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, The Air Force Act, The Army Act and The Navy Act wherein capital punishment is prescribed as one of the punishments for serious offences. The now-repealed Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) also contained provisions for death sentence.

What has the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutional validity of the death sentence?

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ensures the Fundamental Right to life and liberty for all persons. It adds no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This has been legally construed to mean if there is a procedure, which is fair and valid, then the state by framing a law can deprive a person of his life.

While the central government has consistently maintained it would keep the death penalty in the statute books to act as a deterrent, and for those who are a threat to society, the Supreme Court too has upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment in “rarest of rare” cases. In Jagmohan Singh vs State of UP (1973), then in Rajendra Prasad vs State of UP (1979), and finally in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980), the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional validity of the death penalty. It said that if capital punishment is provided in the law and the procedure is a fair, just and reasonable one, the death sentence can be awarded to a convict. This will, however, only be in the “rarest of rare” cases, and the courts should render “special reasons” while sending a person to the gallows.

What would constitute a “rarest of rare” case?

The principles as to what would constitute the “rarest of rare” has been laid down by the top court in the landmark judgment in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980). Bachan Singh formulated certain broad illustrative guidelines and said it should be given only when the option of awarding the sentence of life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed”. It was left completely left upon the court’s discretion to reach this conclusion. However, the apex court also laid down the principle of weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a particular case has to be drawn to ascertain whether justice will not be done if any punishment less than the death sentence is awarded. Two prime questions, the top court held, may be asked and answered. First, is there something uncommon about the crime which renders the sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? Second, are there circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose the death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offenders?

What has been the Supreme Court’s view on mandatory death penalty?

The Supreme Court has always said that the death sentence should be given rarely. In Mithu vs State of Punjab (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional. It struck down Section 303 in the IPC, which entailed a mandatory death sentence for a person who commits murder while serving a life term in another case. The Supreme Court ruled Section 303 violated Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life) since an unreasonable distinction was sought to be made between two classes of murderes. It said all murders would come under the ambit of Section 302, where a court would have the discretion to award life term or death sentence.

Similarly, the Supreme Court ruled in State of Punjab vs Dalbir Singh in 2012 that mandatory death penalty as punishment for crimes under Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959, was unconstitutional. The government moved a Bill to amend the Act, which is currently pending. There are some other subsequent legislation prescribing the mandatory death penalty in drug cases, but the Supreme Court has not yet struck down the penalty as unconstitutional. A pertinent provision in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is currently under scrutiny of the apex court.

What are the avenues available to a death-row convict?

After a trial court awards the death penalty, the sentence requires to be confirmed by a High Court. The sentence shall not be executed till the time the High Court confirms it, either after deciding the appeal filed by the convict, or until the period allowed for preferring an appeal has expired. If the High Court confirms the death penalty and it is also upheld by the Supreme Court, a convict can file a review petition and a curative petition, if the review petition is nixed, for reconsideration of the judgment.

A Constitution Bench ruled last year that a review petition by a death-row convict will be heard by a three-judge bench in open court. Such cases were earlier being heard by two-judge benches in the judges’ chamber. A curative petition is still heard in judges’ chambers. Opening another avenue, the Supreme Court, by yet another path-breaking verdict in 2014, ruled that unexplained delay in execution was a ground for commutation of death penalty, and an inmate, his or her kin, or even a public-spirited citizen could file a writ petition seeking such commutation.

Does the executive have a role in clemency?

Yes. If the Supreme Court turns down the appeal against capital punishment, a condemned prison can submit a mercy petition to the President of India and the Governor of the State. Under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, the President and Governors have the power “to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence”. This power was without any conditions until the last year’s verdict by the Supreme Court, which held that judicial clemency could be granted on the ground of inordinate delay even after a mercy petition is rejected.

How is the execution of death sentence carried out in India?

Execution is carried out by two modes, namely hanging by the neck till death, and being executed by firing squad. The Code of Criminal Procedure calls for the method of execution to be hanging. It states: “When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that the person be hanged by the neck till the person is dead.” In Deena vs Union of India (1993), the Supreme Court adjudicated upon whether the execution of death penalty by hanging by rope is constitutional. It held the method prescribed under the CrPC was valid. Death by shooting is contemplated under the Army Act, Navy Act and Air Force Act. They provide for the discretion of the Court Martial to either provide for the execution of the death sentence by hanging or by being shot to death.

Can an order of execution be challenged in a court of law?

Yes. The procedure for carrying out the execution must also fulfill certain conditions as stipulated by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India (2014), and by the Allahabad High Court in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights vs Union of India (2015). The guidelines hold that a death-row prisoner must get free legal aid for drafting a mercy petition and, if it is rejected, an intimation to the prisoner and his family is imperative. A minimum 14 days’ notice for execution must be given to let him “prepare himself mentally for execution, to make his peace with god, prepare his will and settle other earthly affairs”, besides also allowing him “to have a last and final meeting with his family members.” An execution can be stopped owing to a convict’s physical or mental ill health, the top court has held. The death warrants are issued by the trial court.

In the cases of Shabnam and Salim, the validity of the death warrants have been challenged, contending that the warrants did not specify any date of execution. Further, the convicts still had the legal remedies of filing review and curative petitions, apart from moving clemency petitions.

When was the last execution carried out in India?

The last execution to take place in India was in February 2013, the hanging of Afzal Guru who was convicted of plotting the 2001 attack on India’s Parliament. 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab was hanged in November 2012. Prior to these, the last execution was in 2004, when Dhananjoy Chatterjee was executed for the murder and rape of a 14-year old girl. This was the country’s first execution since 1995, when Auto Shankar, who was convicted of six murders in Tamil Nadu, was executed. Therefore, while the courts sentenced more than 1,400 persons to death between 2001 to 2011, only four have been hanged since 1995. Many of these cases are under the consideration of the Supreme Court and the President for clemency. According to data compiled by the NGO Amnesty International, Indian courts handed down at least 64 death sentences in 2014, but no executions took place. A report by the Death Penalty Research Project of the National Law University in Delhi indicated that at least 270 people were on death row after exhausting all remedies available to them under the law.

Source: http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-in-the-supreme-court-some-questions-of-life-and-death/ [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Lucknow: 2 persons get death for triple murders

TNN | May 27, 2015, 01.09AM IST

LUCKNOW: A Basti court on Tuesday awarded death sentence to two persons after finding them guilty of committing triple murders in 2011. The murders were a result of a dispute related to then panchayat elections, police said.

Three persons -- Pankaj Pandey, Shiv Prakash and Ratnakar -- were at a tea stall in Keswapur village under Paikulia police station of Basti on September 26, 2011, when four miscreants came on two motorbikes and opened fire on them. Pankaj died on the spot, while Shiv Prakash and Ratnakar died later in the hospital.

A named FIR was lodged against four persons. Two accused, Dharmendra and Surya Prakash, were convicted in the case, while other two were acquitted by the court lack of evidence. On Tuesday, the court awarded death penalty to Dharmendra and Surya Prakash.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/2-persons-get-death-for-triple-murders/articleshow/47436140.cms [last accessed 28.05.2015]

ACHR report examines use of 'collective conscience' in death penalties

May 25, 5:40 pm

New Delhi, May 25 (ANI): The Asian Centre for Human Rights ( ACHR) has released a report titled "India: Death in the name of conscience", which 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 specifically examines the manufacturing of 'conscience' to justify death sentence and the use of the 'conscience' in the judgements imposing death penalty which have already been declared as per incuriam by the Supreme Court. It also seeks to examine how 'conscience', which varies from judge to judge depending upon his attitudes and approaches, plays out as to decide whether an accused shall live or die.

It also highlights the inconsistency of the Indian judiciary while considering the factors and circumstances to determine between life and death in a capital punishment case. The report states that 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.

It further states that 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 or the prosecution to find the guilty, even if it means tweaking justice, to assuage public anger. The report cites Nithari killings and Nirbhaya gang rape and says that the public anger is equally directed against the failure of the State and the system as much against the crimes and the criminals, which according to the report is forgotten.

The report examines 48 judgements on death penalty pronounced by two distinguished former judges of the Supreme Court, Justice M B Shah and Justice Arijit Pasayat. Both the Judges are currently serving as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Special Investigation Team on Black Money appointed by the Supreme Court of India respectively.

The report attempts to illustrate how 'conscience' of individual judges play out the 'collective conscience' or 'judicial conscience'. (ANI)

Source: http://www.aninews.in/newsdetail2/story217050/achr-report-examines-use-of-039-collective-conscience-039-in-death-penalties.html [last accessed 25.05.2015]

SC stays execution of death sentence of couple who killed 7

Last Updated: Monday, May 25, 2015 - 12:26

New Delhi: Supreme Court today stayed the execution of death sentence 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.

A bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and U U Lalit issued notice to UP government seeking its response and posted the matter for further hearing on May 27. The warrant for execution of the death sentence of Shabnam and her lover Saleem was issued on May 21. The Supreme Court on May 1 had upheld the conviction and death penalty of the couple and later on May 15 delivered a detailed judgement for dismissing the appeal filed by the convicts.

Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Shabnam, asked the court that the matter be heard before any final decision is taken for executing the death penalty. In 2013, Allahabad High Court had upheld the death sentence to the couple awarded by a sessions court in 2010. Saleem and Shabnam were having an affair and wanted to get married but their relationship met with stiff opposition from the woman's family.

On April 15, 2008, Shabnam's entire family, including a 10-month-old baby, was murdered and the woman initially pretended that her house in Amroha district of UP was attacked by unidentified assailants. It came to light during investigation that she had abetted Saleem in the crime as she made her family members drink milk laced with sedatives before the attack and thereafter herself throttled her infant nephew.

Source: http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/sc-stays-execution-of-death-sentence-of-couple-who-killed-7_1601109.html [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Her crime a blow to society's faith in educated daughter as caregiver: SC

Updated: May 18, 2015 17:42 IST

LEGAL CORRESPONDENT

Calling it an abhorrent crime of parricide shaking the Indian society's aspirations of an educated daughter as a caregiver more responsible than a son, the Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty of a young teacher and her lover for the murder of her aged parents and five other family members.

The case dealt with the multiple murders committed by Shabnam, a teacher in Uttar Pradesh, in 2008.

She had incapacitated her entire family by sedating them. Then had held their heads while her lover slit their throats, one after the other. The Supreme Court judgment quotes the prosecution saying that she strangled her 10-month-old nephew with her own hands. After the deed, she pretended to lie down unconscious near her dead father till the neighbours broke into the house.

The court confirmed that she wanted to do away with her family, who was opposed to her relationship, and keep the family property to herself. A trial court convicted and sentenced the duo to death in July 2008. The decision was upheld by the Allahabad High Court in April 2013.

In its recent judgment on their appeals, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu said the fact that an educated teacher from a civilised family committed this crime and showed no remorse by itself makes it a 'rarest of rare' crime deserving the death penalty.

“Such a deed as parricide would be sufficiently appalling were the perpetrator and the victims are uneducated and backward, but it gains a ghastly illumination from the descent, moral upbringing, and elegant respectful living of the educated family where the father and daughter are both teachers,” Chief Justice Dattu said.

“Here is a case in which Shabnam, who has been brought up in an educated and independent environment by her family and was respectfully employed as a Shikshamitra (teacher) at the school, influenced by the love and lust of her paramour has committed this brutal parricide exterminating seven lives including that of an innocent child,” the judgment said.

Justifying its decision to uphold her death sentence, the apex court distinguished Shabnam's crime triggered intense indignation in the community as it shattered the modern Indian parents' faith that their educated daughter would care for them in their old age.

“The modern era, led by the dawn of education, no longer recognises the stereotype that a parent would want a son so that they have someone to look after them and support them in their old age. Now, in an educated and civilised society, a daughter plays a multifaceted and indispensible role in the family, especially towards her parents,” the court said.

The court said the accused “wrench the heart of our society where family is an institution of love and trust”. It concluded that the couple's cold-blooded depravity leaves little “little likelihood of reform”.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/death-penalty-for-teacher-who-killed-parents-and-family/article7219753.ece [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Supreme Court slaps death sentence on woman

May 16, 2015 - J. Venkatesan | 

New Delhi

In a new twist to sentencing policy, the Supreme Court on Friday held that no leniency can be shown by courts in awarding death sentence only on the ground that the accused in a brutal killing is a woman. The sentencing policy must be proportionate to the crime committed and the sentence must be the same for man and woman, held a three-judge bench of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Justices S.A. Bobde and Arun Mishra, while confirming a death sentence awarded to a woman and her paramour for killing seven members of a family (the case was briefly reported on April 30 when the bench reserved orders).

Writing the judgement, the CJI said, “The Indian legal system today does not differentiate between a son and a daughter — they have equal rights and duties. Indian culture has been witness to for centuries, that daughters dutifully bear the burden of being the care-givers for her parents, even more than a son. Our experience has reflected that an adult daughter places greater emphasis on their relationships with their parents, and when those relationships go awry, it takes a worse toll on the adult daughters than the adult sons.” The bench said, “The principle that when the offence is gruesome and was committed in a calculated and diabolical manner, the age of the accused may not be a relevant factor. Death penalty is not proportional if the law’s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of youth and immaturity. This, however, does not seem to be the case herein. The appellant-accused persons’ preparedness, active involvement. It said “Here is a case where the daughter, appellant-accused Shabnam, who has been brought up in an educated and independent environment by her family and was respectfully employed as a Shikshamitra (teacher) at the school, influenced by the love and lust of her paramour has committed this brutal parricide exterminating seven lives including that of an innocent child.”

It said “Of all the crimes that shock the souls of men, none has ever been held in greater abhorrence than parricide, which is by all odds the most complete and terrible inversion, not alone of human nature but of brute instinct. Such a deed would be sufficiently appalling were the perpetrator and the victims are uneducated and backward, but it gains a ghastly illumination from the descent, moral upbringing, and elegant respectful living of the educated family where the father and daughter are both teachers.

Dismissing the appeals against a Allahabad High Court verdict confirming a trial court’s order, the bench said “the crime is committed in the most cruel and inhuman manner which is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical and revolting. Therefore, as the instant case requires us to award a punishment that is graduated and proportioned to the crime, we have reached the inescapable conclusion that the extreme culpability of both the appellants-accused makes them the most deserving for death penalty.”

Source: http://www.asianage.com/india/supreme-court-slaps-death-sentence-woman-430 [last accessed 28.05.2015]

SC awards death penalty to woman and her lover

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | May 16, 2015, 07.48AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday imposed death sentences on a woman and her lover who wiped out her entire family -- parents, two brothers, sister-in-law and two minors - after heavily sedating them to remove opposition to their love affair and also to grab the family property. 

Supreme Court on Friday imposed death sentences on a woman and her lover who wiped out her entire family.

The apex court, which is generally lenient in awarding sentence to women convicts and of late has been increasingly reluctant to impose capital punishment, was shocked by the brutality of the crime. 

A bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justices S A Bobde and Arun Mishra dismissed the appeals of Shabnam and her lover Saleem and upheld the death penalty imposed on them by a UP trial court which was confirmed by the Allahabad HC. 

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Dattu said, "Here is a case where the daughter Shabnam, who has been brought up in an educated and independent environment by her family and was respectfully employed as a teacher, influenced by the love and lust of her paramour has committed this brutal parricide (act of killing one's father, mother or other close relative), exterminating seven lives including that of a 10-month-old innocent child." 

Shabnam, who was pregnant at the time of crime, had conspired with her unemployed lover Saleem and had served tea heavily laced with sedatives to her family members on the night of April 14, 2008. Saleem entered the house at Bahman Garhi in Amroha and the two slit the throats of the seven family members. She strangulated the 10-month-old child. 

The CJI said, "Not only did she forget her love and duty towards her family, but also perpetrated the multiple homicides in her own house so as to fulfill her desire to be with the co-accused Saleem and grab the property leaving no heir but herself. Both the appellants wrench the heart of our society where family is an institution of love and trust, which they have disrespected and corrupted for the sake of their love affair." 

Amicus curiae Dushyant Parashar pleaded with the court that Shabnam, who was pregnant at the time of crime, was now the mother of a five-year-old child, who would be orphaned if both she and Saleem were awarded death penalty. He had pleaded for life sentence for the couple citing their young age. 

The court rejected the plea. It said Indian society has experienced through centuries that daughters were more caring than sons towards their parents and feel the pinch more when the relationship with parents go awry. 

It said a daughter was a care-giver and a supporter, a gentle hand and responsible voice, an embodiment of the cherished values of our society and in whom a parent placed blind faith and trust. The bench said society abhorred parricide as a person trusted blindly could not be seen to murder those who trusted him/her. 

Parricide assumes indescribable ghastliness when a teacher-daughter murders her teacher-father and her entire family, the bench said. "It is the combined concoction of all aggravating circumstances, that is, victims of the crime, motive for commission of murders, manner of execution, magnitude of crime and remorseless attitude of the appellants-accused that stands before us in this case," the bench said and rejected the plea for award of life sentence to the convicts. 

Past sentences

* Renuka Shinde and her step-sister Seema Gavit were convicted in 2001 for kidnapping 13 children, forcing them to join a gang of thieves and murdering at least five of them. Shinde, 45, and Gavit, 39, were found guilty of kidnapping the 13 children in Maharashtra. They were initially accused of murdering nine of their victims, but prosecutors were only able to prove that they killed five. The Supreme Court upheld their sentence in 2006. The President rejected their mercy pleas last year. 

* Sonia and her husband were awarded death penalty by the SC in 2007 for murdering her father, mother, sister, step-brother and the entire family including three young children - one 45 days old, another two-and-a-half-year-old and the third four years old to resist her father's decision to give the property to her stepbrother. 

* Shabnam is the third to be awarded death penalty in the last decade.

SC confirms death for Pune duo in rape, murder of BPO employee

Court says accused ‘a menace to the society, showed no regret’ 

Written by Utkarsh Anand | New Delhi | Published on:May 10, 2015 1:52 am

Describing them as a “menace to the society,” the Supreme Court on Friday sentenced to death a cab driver and his male friend for “brutally” raping and murdering an “innocent and helpless” BPO employee in Pune in 2007.

The Supreme Court awarded the death sentence to the accused in a 2007 rape case of a BPO employee in Pune

The 22-year-old woman was traveling in her company’s pick-up cab on November 1, 2007, when the driver Purushottam Borate and his friend Pradeep Kokate raped and killer her viciously.

“They did not show any regret, sorrow or repentance at any point of time during the commission of the heinous offence, nor thereafter, rather did they act in a disturbingly normal manner after commission of crime,” said a bench led by Chief Justice of India H L Dattu. Confirming the sentence awarded to the duo by the trial court and the Bombay High Court, the bench said that the offence was so meticulously and carefully planned and was executed with sheer brutality and apathy for humanity that in every probability they have the potency to commit similar offence in future. “It is clear that both the accused persons have been proved to be a menace to society which strongly negates the probability that they can be reformed or rehabilitated. 

The act shocks and repulses the collective conscience of the community and the court,” said the bench while rejecting the defence counsel’s plea to commute the death penalty to life term. The duo was heard by the top court only on the point of sentence. The Court drew a parallel with the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee, who was executed for the murder following a rape of a teenage girl in 1990 at her apartment residence in Bhowanipur in West Bengal. It thus noted: “The gruesome act of raping a victim who had reposed her trust in the accused followed by a cold-blooded and brutal murder of the said victim coupled with the calculated and remorseless conduct of the accused persons after the commission of the offence, we cannot resist from concluding that the depravity of the appellants’ offence would attract no lesser sentence than the death penalty.” 

The Court further underscored that it had to take into account the impact of the crime on the community and particularly women working in the night shifts at Pune, considered as a hub of Information Technology Centre. Stating that criminal sentencing has become a matter of concern in view of the rise in violent crimes against women, the bench said that punishments must act as a deterrent. “There are a shockingly large number of cases where the sentence of punishment awarded to the accused is not in proportion to the gravity and magnitude of the offence thereby encouraging the criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffers, by weakening the system’s credibility. 

The object of sentencing policy should be to see that the crime does not go unpunished and the victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that justice has been done to it,” it emphasised. The Court added: “The society today has been infected with a lawlessness that has gravely undermined social order. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which may be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, in this context, the vital function that this Court is required to discharge is to mould the sentencing system to meet this challenge.”

Source: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-sentences-cab-driver-friend-to-death-for-murder-and-rape-of-bpo-employee/2/ [last accessed 28.05.2015]

A Muslim 'terror accused' tells his account of frame-up and torture

Zia Haq, Hindustan Times, New Delhi| 

Updated: May 09, 2015 16:52 IST

Abdul Qayyum's autobiography reveals a shocking case intrigue, ruse, torture and devious framing, swerving the spotlight on some of India's questionable anti-terror operations.

At a simple ceremony on Friday, Abdul Qayyum--a madrassa teacher from Gujarat--unveiled in New Delhi a book the Gujarat police wouldn't allow him to launch in his home state. Judged by its cover, its unpolished English and utter lack of flair, it’s an unremarkable book at first sight. Brave the dead-eyed prose, and the reader is left with a rare, haunting account of a presumed terrorist on death row declared innocent in the end. Astounding still is how innocent Muslims can be witch-hunted, framed and put on trial on terror charges.

Qayyum was arrested in the 2002 Akshardham temple siege in Gandhinagar, in which 33 were killed when terrorists stormed the temple. In 2006, a Gujarat POTA court sentenced three of the six accused, including Qayyum, to death. That sentence was upheld in 2010 by the Gujarat high court. It then came before the Supreme Court, where the case began to unravel like a George Pelecanos thriller. On May 16, 2014, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi swept the BJP to a historic verdict, another extraordinary verdict was being delivered by the top court: all six accused in the case, including Qayyum, were found innocent.

Qayyum lived to tell his story: '11 Years Behind Bars', an autobiography that reveals a shocking case of intrigue, ruse, torture and devious framing, swerving the spotlight on some of India's questionable anti-terror operations. There isn’t a doubt that terrorists did kill innocent devotees in that famous temple in a commando-like strike, Qayyum says. “Some people may do it.” “But the war on terror targets the entire community. I am living proof. I can only thank Allah and honest Supreme Court,” he says.

To many Muslims, the war on terror often looks like a war on the community itself. While some have been found guilty on terror charges, many others have been acquitted in a series of cases. Qayyum’s account is not just to uncover a dangerous overzeal of police that prompts them to frame innocent people. It is the sinister anti-Muslim communal mindset that makes police act against innocent Muslims, he says. “Every time, they beat me, I would say Allah-u-Akbar. What else would a believing Muslim say? But they would abuse me for remembering my God”. Such accusations of torture by one man under arrest cannot of course be independently corroborated.

But beyond the moving story of hopelessness and human agony, it is the subterfuge of the system by police that is dreadful and proven on record. DG Vanzara, the former deputy inspector-general of Gujarat police and the former head of Gujarat’s Anti-Terrorism Squad, claimed to have solved the case within a day. As the head of the force, Vanzara was widely known for his precision as an anti-terror operation specialist. But Vanzara had to be in jail between 2007 to 2015 for a possibly questionable role in such shootouts.

Vanzara cracked the Akshardham attack speedily – it was plot hatched by Pakistani terror outfits, the Jaish-e-Mohammad and the Lashkar-e-Taiba as well as Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence. Local Muslims like Qayyum ultimately helped pull it off, the police theory went. The dénouement however came in the Supreme Court judgement, which Qayyum quotes from frequently in his book. Page 188 of the verdict states: “…there was a serious attempt on the part of the investigating agency to fabricate a case against the accused persons and frame them…” As he left home after being picked up in August 2003, Qayyum writes he “stared” at his “favourite mosque” passing by, his father -- oblivious to his arrest -- sipping tea at a nearby shop. “I only waved because who knows I might not return.” His father died while Quyyum was moved from one prison to the other.

The day he returned a free man, 11 years later, there was “no sense in my feet.” “I was flowing on the flood of the crowd of people, with support on their shoulders”.

Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/from-death-row-terror-accused-to-innocent-a-muslim-s-account-of-frame-up-and-ruse/article1-1345348.aspx [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Madhya Pradesh: Man gets death sentence for wife's murder

Last Updated: Friday, May 8, 2015 - 22:55

Shahdol: A district and sessions court in Madhya Pradesh has awarded capital punishment to a man for murdering his wife in a brutal way. 

The incident had taken place at Seoni village under Jaithari police station area.

District judge Anand Mohan Khare of Annoopur sentenced Phoolchand Rathore (51) to death yesterday for killing his wife by banging her head on a railway track on February 1, 2010.

They had had a quarrel over disappearance of jewellery before the incident, according to the prosecution.

Public prosecutor Ram Naresh Tripathi said that Rathore's daughter appeared as a prosecution witness and told the court that her father took away her mother on that day forcibly and later she was found dead.

PTI

Source: http://zeenews.india.com/news/madhya-pradesh/man-gets-death-sentence-for-wifes-murder_1592279.html [last accessed 25.08.2015]

West Bengal: Man given death sentence for setting wife on fire

Press Trust of India | Nadia (WB) 

May 7, 2015 Last Updated at 20:57 IST

A 32-year-old man was today sentenced to death by a sessions court here for setting his wife on fire for dowry. 

Dipankar Ghosh (32) of Bhajanghat Kalitala in Nadia district was given the capital punishment by Partha Sarathi Mukhopadhyay, Additional Session Judge, Krishnagar. 

Five other accused, all family members of the convict, were acquitted and released by the court, Public Prosecutor Ashok Mukherjee said. 

Ashima Ghosh (25), wife of the convict, was set on fire on November 24, 2012. She was rushed to a local hospital and later shifted to a hospital in Kolkata where she succumbed to her burns, the Public Prosecutor said. 

The victim in her statements to the police in the local hospital and to doctors in the Kolkata hospital said her husband had been torturing her for dowry ever since she married him in 2009.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/man-given-death-sentence-for-setting-wife-on-fire-115050701086_1.html [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Uttar Pradesh: Murder case: Death sentence for man, life for 4

Press Trust of India | Ballia 

May 7, 2015 Last Updated at 19:32 IST

A local court has awarded death sentence to a man and life terms to four others in a six-year- old murder case, terming it as "rarest of rare" and the killing as "most cruel". 

Additional sessions judge D P N Singh announced death sentence for Munna Rajbhar and life imprisonment for Hausala Devi, her father Ramjit Yadav and brothers Avdhesh Yadav and Dinesh Yadav. 

Ramdhyan Yadav was killed on August 10, 2009 in Khadsara village under Khejuri police station area and his body was thrown away, the prosecution said. 

Yadav's wife Hausala Devi was having an illicit relationship with Rajbhar. On that fateful day, he (Yadav) was on his way to her parents' house on her invitation when Rajbhar slit his neck and abdomen and also pulled out his intestines, prosecution said, adding that an FIR for murder and hiding the body was lodged. 

After hearing both the sides, the court termed the murder as most cruel and the case as rarest of rare and awarded the sentences.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/murder-case-death-sentence-for-man-life-for-4-115050700932_1.html [last accessed 28.05.2015]

HC commutes death penalty to life term

TNN | May 6, 2015, 02.12AM IST

AHMEDABAD: Gujarat high court on Tuesday commuted the death sentence of Keshav Joshi to life imprisonment. Joshi had been awarded death penalty for raping his two-and-a-half-year old niece and leaving her to die in 2007 in Halol town of Panchmahal district. The bench headed by Justice R R Tripathi commuted Joshi's death penalty after saying that "his case does not fall in the rarest of the rare category", said his counsel Jiten Buddhbhatti. 

According to the case details, the toddler was raped and then thrown into thorny bushes by Joshi, who was then working as a private security guard. The child was rushed to SSG hospital in Vadodara, where he succumbed to her injuries. Joshi and the family of the victim both hail from Nepal. The accused was thrashed by people and then handed over to police. He was booked for rape and murder. A trial court in Godhra heard the case and awarded death penalty to Joshi in 2013. 

Joshi challenged his conviction before the high court, which concluded that there is ample evidence against Joshi to prove his guilty. However, the case does not fall in the rarest of the rare category and hence the extreme punishment was commuted to life imprisonment.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/HC-commutes-death-penalty-to-life-term/articleshow/47168578.cms [last accessed 28.05.2015]

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]

Maharashtra: SC stays death for killer ST driver Santosh Mane

By Vijay Chavan, Pune Mirror | Apr 28, 2015, 02.30 AM IST

Court buys into the 'insanity' argument in the delayed plea placed before it.

In a significant twist in the tale, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India last week put a stay on the execution of death penalty against State Transport driver Santosh Mane, who had mowed down nine people and injured 37 others near Swargate, in the morning of January 25, 2012.

The SC surprisingly allowed the Condonation of Delay (allowing the delay in filing the appeal), affidavit filed by Mane's lawyer, Dhananjay Mane, and allowed the appeal, claiming that since the driver was 'insane' his death sentence needed to be revoked.

In September last year, the Bombay High Court upheld the death punishment and the state was under the process to execute the punishment. With this stay now, the execution is postponed for an indefinite period.

Mane, through his lawyers Jaydeep Mane, Amol Chitale and advocate Dhananjay Mane, had filed the appeal before the bench of Chief Justice of India H L Dattu, Justice R K Agarwal and Justice Arun Mishra.

The bench has stated that till any further order, there should be no execution of death sentences, further asking the government to furnish details of the case and evidences. Time is also allowed for translation of documents in English, since most of the evidences of the case are written in Marathi. The next hearing is scheduled in May.

Speaking to Pune Mirror, advocate Dhananjay Mane said, "The bench of SC has considered the appeal plea, stating that the police and investigating agencies had issued wrong evidences against Mane and neglected to focus on vital medical evidences of Mane's psychiatric treatment. Besides this, the role of MSRTC authorities were also ignored while the hearing was on at both the Pune sessions court as well as Bombay HC."

Mane said the delay of completion of formalities was caused by "miscommunication while sourcing a certificate from Yerwada jail confirming his formal presence there for three years. The delay was caused despite filing the application well within the time frame".

This, said the advocate, has been conveyed to the SC bench, and extra time sought to translate voluminous documents from Marathi to English.

Regarding this development, an official from the district government pleader's office, said, on condition of anonymity, "The applicant has the responsibility to prove his innocence by describing the loopholes in the case. Subsequently, the state will submit its side since this was an exceptional case where the crime was so cruel, diabolical and revolting, that it shook the collective conscience of the society."

Janak Mane, Santosh Mane's older brother, refused to comment on this development, choosing to hold his words till the final judgment.

On that fateful day of January 2012, Mane was denied a change from night duty to day duty by his superiors at Maharashtra State Transport Corporation. Heckled, he hijacked the bus from the Swargate depot and drove wildly on the wrong side of the road and on one-way routes for 16 kms, killing and injuring many.

WHAT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE SC

Advocate Mane said, "There is no doubt that Santosh Mane was insane and we are going to submit the same thing before the SC, as the prosecution has failed to prove that Santosh had any intention of going on a killing spree."

Quoting Section 84 (acts of a person of an unsound mind) of the IPC, the lawyer claimed that his client should get the benefit of insanity. Since he had no enmity with the deceased and others injured in the mishap, a case of murder cannot be established.

►► The bench of SC has considered the appeal plea, stating that the police and investigating agencies had issued wrong evidences against Mane and neglected to focus on vital medical evidences of his psychiatric treatment

- DHANANJAY MANE, Advocate

Kashmir: Four sentenced to death in Indian-held Kashmir

24 April 2015 22:34 (Last updated 24 April 2015 22:36)

Four men were convicted of raping and murdering a 13-year-old girl in the northern Kupwara district in 2007.

By Shazia Yousuf

SRINAGAR, INDIAN HELD KASHMIR 

A court in Indian-held Kashmir on Friday sentenced four men to death after they were convicted of raping and murdering a 13-year-old girl in the northern Kupwara district in 2007. The District and Sessions court called it a “rarest of rare cases” to justify resorting to capital punishment. Tabinda Gani, an 8th grade student from the Langate area in northern Indian-held Kashmir, or IHK, was abducted, raped and murdered by the four convicts while she was on her way home from the school on July 7, 2007.

“It was a Friday and the schools closed early at noon for the Friday prayers. And Tabinda was passing through a less frequented stretch of road when these four people abducted her,” Ghulam Mohammad Shah, the public prosecutor told The Anadolu Agency. “When she failed to return home for a couple of hours, her family started looking for her and what they found was heartrending.”

Tabinda’s family and villagers, Shah said, found in an orchard bottles of alcohol and soft drinks and nearby a shoe belonging to Gani and then a piece of her dress.

“Then they found her naked body half buried under a small mound of earth and covered by hay. Her throat had been slit and she had been raped and brutalized,” Shah said. The police in the IHK arrested the four people sentenced Friday in August 2007. After a trial of eight years in which the statements of more than 80 witnesses were recorded, the court gave them the death penalty. While two of the convicted were locals from the same district, the other two were from India.

The courtroom, which was jam-packed with hundreds of people, saw numerous emotional outbursts when the verdict was delivered. Gani’s family broke down and hugged each other. They said that they hoped the verdict would bring closure to a painful journey and the unspeakable loss. “For the last eight years, we have waited to hear these words. But we continue to wait for the day when they will all be hanged,” Mohammad Iqbal, Gani’s brother said. 

The death sentence was a first for the District and Sessions judge, Mohammad Ibrahim Wani, who told The Anadolu Agency that he hoped that it would also be his last. “It is extremely difficult to sentence someone to death. Life and death are in God’s hands alone, but I followed the law. It was the rarest of rare cases and that is why I gave them capital punishment,” Wani said. Kashmir, a Muslim-majority Himalayan region, is held by India and Pakistan in parts and claimed by both in full.

Source: http://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/499244--four-sentenced-to-death-in-indian-held-kashmir [last accessed 28.05.2015]

Convicts can't be hanged secretly and hurriedly: Supreme Court

Amit Anand Choudhary,TNN | May 28, 2015, 02.24 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Condemned prisoners also have a right to dignity, the Supreme Court has said holding that execution of death sentence cannot be carried out in an arbitrary, hurried and secret manner without allowing death row convicts to exhaust all legal remedies and meet family members.

"Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not end with the confirmation of the death sentence. Even in cases of death row convicts, their right to dignity must be protected," said a bench of justices A K Sikri and U U Lalit while quashing 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.

The court's observations assume significance in the context of the hue and cry raised by human rights activists after Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru was hanged in the capital's Tihar jail in 2013 even before his family members could get the intimation.

In case of the couple — Shabnam and Saleem — the bench said, "We find that death warrant was signed by the sessions judge in haste without waiting for convict to exhaust all legal remedies." It pointed out that the condemned prisoners can file review petition before the Supreme Court and can also seek mercy from the the President or Governor for commuting their sentence.

Referring to the Allahabad HC order on procedure to be followed for execution of death sentence, the bench said the principles of natural justice must be followed and sufficient notice given to the convict before the issuance of death warrant to enable him/her to pursue legal recourse and have a final meeting with family members before execution. In cases where a convict is not in a position to get legal assistance, legal aid must be provided, it said.

The bench expressed surprised on the "unwarranted" haste with which the Amroha court issued execution warrants, just six days after the Supreme Court awarded death sentence to the couple on May 15 for wiping out the woman's entire family— parents, two brothers, sister-in-law and two minors - to remove opposition to their affair and also grab family property.

Appearing for the death row convicts, senior advocates Anand Grover and Raju Ramachandaran contended that guidelines laid down by SC and Allahabad HC were given a go-by the sessions court and pleaded for quashing of the warrant.

The apex court said the sessions court issued the warrant without waiting for the mandatory 30 days to allow death row convicts to avail judicial remedy of filing petitions for a review.

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.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Convicts-cant-be-hanged-secretly-and-hurriedly-Supreme-Court/articleshow/47450451.cms [last accessed 28.05.2015]

The many wrong messages that hanging Yakub Memon would send

The Supreme Court's upholding the death sentence for the man who surrendered, hoping to clear his name in the Mumbai bomb blasts case, also draws our attention to the miscarriage of justice in the preceding riots.

Jyoti Punwani · Apr 20, 2015 · 09:45 am

What must Yakub Memon have felt on hearing that the Supreme Court had rejected his review petition against his conviction and death sentence in the 1993 serial Mumbai bomb blasts case. The mocking words of his brother, Ibrahim ‘Tiger’ Memon, advising him not to give himself up to the Indian authorities might have echoed in his ears. “You are returning as a Gandhiwadi, but the Indian government will see you only as a terrorist,” Tiger had told him, according to what Yakub told the special court in Mumbai set up under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act.

On April 16, the Supreme Court rejected Yakub’s review petition against his conviction and sentence. The same court had earlier rejected his appeal against his conviction by a special court in Mumbai in 2006, and the president had rejected his mercy petition in May 2014. On the charges for which Yakub has been convicted, none of his co-accused has been given the death penalty.

Tiger Memon's words proved prophetic. Yakub gave up life in a gilded cage in Karachi under the ISI’s watch, to come back in July 1994 and clear his name in the case of the 1993 blasts, which had been masterminded by his brother and Dawood Ibrahim. He was followed by seven members of his family. Only Tiger, another brother Ayub, and their families stayed back.

With him, Yakub brought proof of Pakistan's involvement in the blasts, which India could not have otherwise obtained. He thought this act would earn him a reprieve. Instead, unable to get Dawood Ibrahim or Tiger Memon, the Indian authorities wrecked vengeance on the rest of the Memon family, who had chosen to surrender because of “faith in our government and judiciary”, as Yakub wrote in a letter to the chief justice of India from Arthur Road jail five years after he had set foot on Indian soil. (A copy of the letter appears at the end).

The government did not even have the grace to acknowledge that the Memons had chosen to surrender. Instead, the then home minister, SB Chavan, said in Parliament amidst much thumping of desks that the authorities had arrested Yakub from New Delhi railway station. “I've never seen it in my life,” wrote Yakub in his letter.

His family’s incarceration and their deteriorating physical and mental health drove Yakub to depression. In his letter, he wrote that he could not remember the events of one full year in jail when he was confined to bed. In the letter, Yakub also described his life before the March 12, 1993, blasts. It was an ordinary life: SSC with 70%, then college in the morning and work during the day, graduation, post-graduation, four years of studying to be a chartered accountant, and then establishing his own CA firm with a Hindu partner. “We were doing very well...I was very busy. The purpose of giving this brief about myself is to bring home just one single point: “WHERE WAS THE TIME TO HATE…” (upper case in the original).

In his letter, Yakub pointed out that nine of his 15-member family were NRIs settled in Dubai, and the rest would often visit them. On the day of the blasts, they were in Dubai, and got to know only later that one among them had masterminded them. After the blasts, the entire family left for Pakistan. “But we did not lost (sic) hopes of coming back to India and wipe out the stigma attached to our name,” wrote Yakub.

But the stigma would not be wiped out. “The prosecution is harping upon `Memon Family’ during their arguments as if there is a section in CrPC (as in Income Tax laws, while dealing with the HUF- the Hindu Undivided Family), wherein a family can be treated as a single unit. … The main reason for implicating us in the case is that we were in relation (to) and association of the prime accused. Now to be in relation to anyone is not a crime… We do not deny our relation and association with Ibrahim Memon …as a relative and nothing more.”

In 2007, having spent almost 13 years in jail, Yakub was sentenced to death by the TADA court. His brothers Essa and Yusuf, both seriously ill, and sister-in-law Rubeena were sentenced to life imprisonment. When his sentence was read out by the TADA court judge, Yakub cried out: “Forgive him lord, for he knows not what he does.'' Seven years later, the Supreme Court upheld the judgement.

But, as both Yakub’s appeal and his review petition, argued by lawyer Jaspal Singh, asserted, Yakub was convicted on the basis of the statement of one approver and the retracted confessions of co-accused. The prosecution did not produce any independent evidence to refute Yakub’s assertion that he knew nothing about the blasts.

With the mercy and review petitions rejected, Yakub is left with little hope: only perhaps a curative petition and another mercy petition. If Yakub is hanged, the message will be clear: if you have committed a crime and have been lucky enough to escape, good for you. If you are suspected of having committed a crime but want to return to India to try and clear your name, be prepared for the worst. Far better to spend your life in luxury, even if it is in a country that is hostile to yours. Not for you the choice of bringing up your children as Indians.

The second message that Yakub's hanging will send is that there is no place for reformation in our justice system. Among the arguments made by advocate Jaspal Singh in his review petition were his client’s record of good conduct in jail and no evidence by the prosecution that there existed no possibility of reformation. During his 21 years in jail, eight of them on death row, Yakub has obtained an MA in English from the Indira Gandhi National Open University. The authorities of the course denied him permission to attend the convocation, although it was held in Nagpur itself, where he has been lodged since 2007. The day the Supreme Court dismissed his review petition in April, Yakub got an MA from IGNOU in political science.

The third message will perhaps be the most ominous – that our criminal justice system recognises guilt by association. Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon are beyond our reach. Should we rejoice that we have at least one Memon we can hang and lock the others up for life? Was Yakub right in writing: “According to the prosecution if one member does any wrong, entire family …can be punished and society can be shown that the justice is being done?” 

Finally, Yakub Memon’s hanging will inevitably draw our attention to the original sin in the chain of events that led to the March 12, 1993 blasts: the Mumbai riots that followed the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Neither those who demolished the Masjid nor those found guilty of the ensuing riots, in which 900 persons were killed, among them 575 Muslims and 275 Hindus, were punished, even though criminal offences were registered against the perpetrators. Two judicial commissions also indicted specific individuals for both crimes.

Among these individuals were 31 policemen, charged with extreme communal conduct against Muslims, including murder. None of them was punished. Nearly all the offenders in both events not only went free, some of them ruled the country as central ministers.

But those who took revenge for the riots, killing 257 people, were not let off. Their punishment ranged from two years to death. All death sentences, except Yakub’s, were six years later commuted to life.

When the TADA court held him guilty, Yakub cried out: “Woh sahi bolta tha, koi insaaf nahin milega, tum log hume terrorist banake chodoge.” What he said was right; you won’t get justice; you will make us into terrorists. He was referring to Tiger Memon’s words. In his letter, Yakub wrote: ‘’Section 20(8) and other draconian provision of this Act does not allow the Designated TADA court judge to look upon us with living and merciful eyes. On the contrary we are presumed to be guilty of TERRORISM.”

The letter that Yakub Memon wrote to the chief justice of India from Arthur Road Jail,five years after he surrendered to Indian authorities in July 1994.

Source: http://scroll.in/article/730324/hyderabad-sweepers-can-take-the-heat-but-not-the-insensitivity-of-others [last accessed 28.05.2015]