Supreme Court upholds death for killer of five

TNN | Feb 26, 2012

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has upheld death penalty to a young man Sonu Sardar, who along with his brother and accomplices, killed five persons of a family, including a woman and two children, in cold blood during a dacoity bid in Chhattisgarh's Cher village in November, 2004.

A bench of Justices A K Patnaik and Swataner Kumar rejected the plea for leniency advanced by the convict on the grounds that he was a young man and that his role in the crime committed by five persons was not revealed by the prosecution.

Justice Patnaik, writing the judgment for the bench, said: "Five members of a family, including two minor children and the driver, were ruthlessly killed by the use of a knife, an axe and an iron rod and with the help of four others. The crime was obviously committed for money after pre-meditation with absolutely no consideration for human lives."

The bench upheld concurrent views of the trial court as well as the Chhattisgarh high court that the convict deserved capital punishment and said, "Even though the appellant was young, his criminal propensities are beyond reform and he is a menace to the society."

When the gang of five struck at the house of scrap-dealer Shamim Akhtar on November 26, 2004, and demanded money by placing a knife on his neck, his daughter Shabana (10) tried to come to Shamim's rescue. The accused attempted to assault her too but she managed to give them a slip and ran away to the house of her father's acquaintance.

She came back to the house with help to find the bodies of her father, mother and two siblings along with their driver. The trial court had convicted the accused mainly on the basis of Shabana's evidence, and the apex court felt that there was no infirmity in the process of conviction recorded by the trial court.

Rajiv assassins' plea should not be moved out of Tamil Nadu: Govt

New Delhi: The Tamil Nadu government today opposed in the Supreme Court a plea to shift out of the Madras High Court the appeals of three Rajiv Gandhi assassins, challenging their death penalty on account of an 11-year delay in deciding their mercy petition by the President.

Tamil Nadu's Additional Advocate General Gurukrishna Kumar opposed the plea for transfer of the three convicts' appeals out of the state High Court, denying allegations made before the apex court that the atmosphere in the state was too "vitiated and surcharged" to hold a free and fair hearing in the case.

Kumar also questioned the locus standi of petitioner L K Venkat, seeking the apex court's direction for transfer of the case out of Madras High Court to the Supreme Court.

Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, appearing for the three convicts on death row, also opposed the transfer plea on the ground that Article 139A (relating to transfer of certain cases) gives power only to the Attorney General of India or the aggrieved parties to file a petition for transfer.


Venkat's counsel L Nandkumar, however, submitted that a free and fair hearing of the proceedings cannot be held in the Madras High Court owing to the "surcharged, hostile and vitiated" atmosphere prevailing there.

After hearing the arguments by various parties, a bench of justices G S Signhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked the state to file a counter affidavit within a week and posted the matter for further hearing to October 19.

The bench asked Tamil Nadu government to file a counter affidavit on the plea for shifting appeals of the three condemned prisoners in the assassination case out of the state high court.

"Though the request made by the state additional advocate general is unreasonable, we are granting time for filing the counter affidavit," the bench said.

The judges were irked at Tamil Nadu government's request as it had failed to reply till date to its September 15 notice on plea.

On a petition by the three death row convicts, the Madras High Court had earlier stayed their hanging and had issued notices to the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government.

The three convicts - Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan alias Arivu - had challenged the sentence despite the same having been upheld earlier by the apex court and the President having rejected their mercy pleas subsequently.

Venkat subsequently had moved the apex court seeking transfer of their appeals out of the state high court and the apex court had issued notices on the petition to the state.

Venkat had alleged in his plea that the convicts' appeals challenging their death sentences cannot be heard in a free and fair atmosphere in the state as several supporters of the banned LLTE were interfering with the functioning of the judiciary by raising slogans in support of the convicts.



Source : http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rajiv-assassins-plea-should-not-be-moved-out-of-tamil-nadu-govt-139995

Mercy Petition Rejected

There is news that the President of India has rejected the mercy petition of Devinderpal Singh Bhullar and Mahendra Nath Das.

Devinderpal Singh Bhullar has been convicted for his alleged terrorist acts. The most interesting fact about this case, is that while hearing his appeal in the Supreme Court, 2 judges on the bench convicted and sentenced him to death while the third judge had acquitted him.
The judges of the highest court in this country not only have disagreement on the sentence of Devinderpal but completely disagree on his guilt and conviction, under these circumstances the death sentence should have been commuted to life. Its extremely unfortunate that the home ministry has not looked into this issue and had rejected the mercy petition.

Gujarat assembly passes bill proposing death penalty for bootleggers

The Gujarat assembly on Tuesday unanimously passed the Bombay Prohibition (Gujarat Amendment Act) 2009 bill that proposes death sentence or life imprisonment for those found guilty of manufacturing and selling illicit liquor in case of death of those who consume the brew in the state.

The new bill follows the death of 136 people after consuming illicit brew in Ahmedabad since July 5.

The Gujarat government proposed an amendment to the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 proposing harsher punishment for those who manufacture and sell illicit liquor resulting in the death of consumers.

The new bill was tabled in the assembly by Minister of State for Home Amit Shah and, after an hour-long discussion, the members unanimously passed the amended bill, which is now called 'Bombay Prohibition (Gujarat Amendment Act) 2009'.

The amended bill has also proposed seven-10 years' imprisonment for those found guilty of manufacturing, selling or distributing country liquor -- in cases where it does not result in the death of any consumer.

Shah told the house that the prohibition policy was proposed by Mahatma Gandhi to the British rulers in 1915. The Congress party during the British rule had promised Mahatma Gandhi that the party would implement prohibition in Gujarat after independence. It was enacted in Gujarat from 1950.

The Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 had undergone amendments in 1964, 1978, 2003 and 2005. The Bombay Prohibition (Gujarat Amendment Act) 2009 also makes it mandatory for the police to send the seized consignment of country liquor to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Gujarat for testing before suitable charges are filed against the culprits. The seized vehicle in which the liquor was carried would be auctioned and the proceeds deposited in the state government treasury, the amended bill states.

6,767 criminals convicted after speedy trial in the first half of 2009

As many as 6,767 criminals have so far been convicted in Bihar this year till June following speedy trial conducted for ensuring quick disposal ofcrime cases. Out of these, 8 criminals were awarded capital punishment and901 were awarded life imprisonment, a police headquarters press note onTuesday said. Patna with 658 convictions, has again topped the list followed by Nalanda(576) and Muzaffarpur 453). These figures are based on the convictionstill June this year. In 2008, too, Patna had topped the list and a total of 1,301 criminalswere convicted here after speedy trial. The state government, in its moveto bring criminals to terms, launched a special drive for speedy trial incriminal cases in 2006 which so far has delivered very good results. In the launching year, a total of 6,839 criminals were convicted and thefigure went up to 9,853 in 2007. The tempo was maintained in 2008 during which a total of 12,007 criminals were convicted in Bihar. Having crossed the 6,700mark in the first 6 months of the current year,the state is likely to improve its performance compared to the previousyear. What should work as a deterrent for the criminals is the fact thatout of a total conviction of 35,466 criminals between January 2006 andJune 2009, a whopping 6,765 have been awarded life imprisonment and 91 ofthem capital punishment.

(Source: The Times of India, 8 July)

Supreme Court: Execution by hanging to continue

Hanging by the neck till death would continue to be the mode of execution of condemned prisoners, SC said on Monday refusing to entertain a PIL seeking replacement of the cruel and painful method with the lethal injection, a method practised in the US.

"How do you know that hanging causes pain? And how do you know that injecting the condemned prisoner with a lethal drug would not cause pain?" asked a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam.

PIL petitioner Ashok Kumar Walia probably thought that the bench was mistaking his plea and tried to impress upon the court by arguing that he was not seeking abolition of death penalty but only a change in the manner of execution of prisoners on the death row.

But, it appeared that the bench understood the implications of the plea and said it has been opined that hanging, which involved dropping the prisoner with the noose around the neck several feet down so as to dislocate his neck and sever the spinal cord, also caused instant death.

The CJI said: "Many countries, still practising death penalty, have various methods of execution death squad which guns down a condemned prisoner from close range, hanging by the neck, electric chair and by injecting a lethal drug."

"In India, we have a very, very liberal sentencing system based on a humane law. The courts in rarest of the rare cases award death sentence," the bench said. Before dismissing the PIL, the court told the petitioner to create public opinion for the abolition of capital punishment.

India last carried out the death sentence in 2004 when Dhananjoy Chatterjee was hanged to death for rape and murder of 14-year-old school student Hetal Parekh in 1990.

(Source: The Times of India, 7 July)

End the Death Penalty for Drug-Related Offenses: Human Rights Watch

As the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking approaches on June 26, the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN), of which Amnesty International is a member, Human Rights Watch and the International Harm Reduction Association call upon governments in Asia to cease applying the death penalty for drug-related offenses.

There is a clear, longstanding and worldwide move toward restriction or abolition of the death penalty. Only a small minority of countries continue to implement the death penalty: in 2008, 25 countries carried out executions. ADPAN, Human Rights Watch and the International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA) oppose the death penalty in all cases as a violation of fundamental rights - the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.

Sixteen countries in Asia apply the death penalty for drug-related offenses. As many countries in the region do not make information on the death penalty available, it is impossible to calculate exactly how many drug-related death sentences are imposed. However, in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand, reports indicate that a high proportion of death sentences are imposed upon those convicted of drug offenses. ADPAN, Human Rights Watch, and the IHRA express particular concern that China, Indonesia, and Vietnam continue to execute individuals for drug offenses -
and that some countries, such as China since the early 1990s, and Indonesia in 2008, have marked the occasion of June 26 with such executions.

Despite the executions in Asia, there is no clear evidence of a decline in drug trafficking that could be attributed to the threat or use of the death penalty. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters serious crime in general more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996 and 2002, concluded: "... research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a
whole gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis."

UN human rights mechanisms - including the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, and the UN Human Rights Committee - have concluded that the death penalty for drug offenses fails to meet the condition of "most serious crime", under which the death penalty is allowed only as an "exceptional measure" where "there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life" (UN Doc, A/HRC/4/20, 29 January 2007, para 53). The UN high commissioner for human rights and the director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime have likewise expressed
grave concerns about the application of the death penalty for drug offenses.

Death sentences are often handed down after unfair legal processes, a problem made worse by laws, policies or practices regulating drug offenses in some Asian countries. Mandatory death sentences are applied for certain drug offenses in Brunei, India, Laos, Singapore, and Malaysia, leaving a judge with no discretion over the sentence for defendants found guilty.

Mandatory death sentences violate international standards on fair trials. Individualized sentencing is required to prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment and the arbitrary deprivation of life. Singapore, which has one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world, as well as Malaysia, continue to hand down death sentences to individuals alleged to be drug traffickers after trials that presume guilt, and in which death sentences are mandatory.

Confessions that have been coerced sometimes form the basis of guilty verdicts, death sentences and executions. Competent legal assistance is unavailable to many defendants, including defendants facing drugs-related charges, leaving many with little capacity to mount a defense at any stage of the proceedings.

Draconian penalties for drug offenses, including the death penalty, hinder public health programs that reduce the harm drugs may cause to individual drug users, their loved ones, communities, and states. China, Malaysia, and Vietnam have recently stepped up their harm reduction programs to reduce HIV, hepatitis C and other drug-related health and social harms. However, excessive punishments and overly repressive drug law enforcement have been shown time and again to drive target groups away from such services. The death penalty therefore not only violates the right to life of those condemned, but is actually counterproductive to efforts to reduce the harm caused by drugs.

On the occasion of UN Anti-Drugs Day 2009, ADPAN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the IHRA appeal to Asian governments to:

Introduce an immediate moratorium on executions with a view to the abolition of the death penalty in line with UN General Assembly resolution 62/149 and 63/168 on "moratorium on the use of the death penalty";

Commute all death sentences, including for drug offenses;

Remove provisions within their domestic legislation that allow for the
death penalty for drug offenses;

Abolish the use of mandatory sentencing in capital cases;

Publicize statistics on the death penalty and facts around the
administration of justice in death penalty cases; and

Use the occasion of Anti-Drugs Day 2009 to highlight public health
policies that have proven effective in reducing drug-related harms.

(Source: Human Rights Watch, 23 June)