Chennai:
One morning four decades ago, Thiagu killed a man. It was neither a mistake nor an accident. He and his associates planned carefully, made a failed attempt a few months earlier and finally managed to murder a landlord on that morning of September way back in 1970, hacking him to death on the spot. In an era where the attempt was to overthrow “casteist” and “classist” rulers, that killing was to herald ‘Spring Thunder’ in Tamil Nadu.
K Thiagarajan alias Thiagu was then a young man of 20, when he read Naxal leader Charu Mazumdar’s revolutionary exhortation ‘To the Youth and the Students’. The impact it had on the young man’s mind was such that he left his studies the next day and moved to villages to be among the peasants and working class, toiling among then even while educating and preparing the masses for the revolution that he then believed was imminent and inevitable. Change was the goal, armed uprising was the means and violence was but a justifiable path for the greater common good.
“The idea we had then was that if we kill a few landlords who oppressed the poor and attack the police who always sided with the rich, we would be able to create a revolutionary base in Thanjavur first and take the struggle forward from there. Though the means were violent, the objective was a just one,” recalled Thiagu.
The target was Muthu Thangappa, a 40-something landlord, at Thiruvonam village in Thanjavur district. Thangappa, a former panchayat president, was not a big landlord, but was allegedly casteist; one who they believed had murdered many poor peasants.
At around 7 a.m. on September 27, 1970, as Thangappa washed himself in the village pond and was to proceed to drink arrack as was his routine, a squad of five hacked him and assaulted another who tried to stop the attack.
Though the squad members dispersed from the scene immediately, Thiagu, who was new to the area, was caught within a few hours. Some of his accomplices, too, were soon in police custody. The group tried to attempt an escape by attacking the police party that took them to the Thanjavur sessions court for trial, but failed.
During the trial, the accused refused to cooperate with the hearing, maintaining that the “bourgeois” court cannot judge their actions. Instead, while the trial was going on, they shouted slogans, sang revolutionary songs and staged plays about a classless society. Without an advocate to argue their case, the verdict went against them—Lenin Rangasamy and Gurumurthy were awarded death penalty and the rest, including Thiagu, got life imprisonment.
When the case came to the High Court for confirmation, a few lawyers appealed against the sessions court verdict. “Though we refused to appeal, continuing our boycott of the proceedings, the case automatically came to the High Court for reference trial as is mandatory for all cases where the verdict is capital punishment. I wrote to senior lawyer Krishnamurthi stating that we don’t want to appeal to which he replied, ‘We will save you in spite of you’,” says Thiagu.
In the reference trial, the higher court observed that despite the insistence of the accused to boycott the proceedings, the trial court erred in not appointing a lawyer or at least cross-examining the witnesses, leading to a procedural flaw and ordered a retrial, this time at the Nagapattinam sessions court.
That court not only confirmed death for Lenin and Gurumurthy, it also turned Thiagu’s life imprisonment to death penalty in the verdict passed on July 7, 1972. The three death penalties were subsequently confirmed by the High Court in October.
Waiting for death inside the prison, they read a lot and discussed all that they read, which gradually changed their outlook towards the path they had undertaken even as they stood by the aim. This led Thiagu to disown killings as the means to overthrow the system.
“When I looked back and re-examined the whole process and ideas, I realised that however noble the goal, the means we adopted were not the best. When the landlord was murdered, the lower castes distributed sweets and when we were awarded death, the caste Hindus did the same. We were not able to overcome these biases,” says Thiagu.
Even though the trio didn’t want to seek mercy, an activist, A G Kasturirangan, popularly known as AGK, drafted a petition on their behalf in 1973 in which he referred to a similar case in Kerala where one Mundur Ravunni was let off the gallows as the person he was accused of killing was a cruel landlord. The next year, on April 10, 1973, Thiagu, Lenin and Gurumurthi had their death penalty reduced to life imprisonment by the then Chief Minister M Karunanidhi.
During his time in prison, Thiagu read and reread, discussed and debated about the world, life and politics. He translated Karl Marx’s Capital for the first time in Tamil, ran a handwritten paper inside the prison called Swatanthiradaham (Thirst for Freedom) and fought for the welfare of prisoners through the Organisation for the Rights of the Imprisoned. “For us, prison was just a venue, a platform where you stage the struggle. We educated many, made them aware and started discussing public issues,” he says.
On November 29, 1985, Thiagu and the other two were released from prison after the authorities confirmed that they were no longer a threat to the society.
After his release, Thiagu immersed himself in finishing his work on translating Capital, which he eventually completed seven years after his release from the erstwhile Chennai central prison. Politically, he moved from Maoism to Indian mainstream Communism, though not for long. By then he was attracted to Tamil nationalism that was not acceptable to the Left and he was expelled from the party.
Around this time, Thiagu started a school, Thai Tamil Primary School, outside Chennai which focussed on educating underprivileged children. The idea was to educate children so as to equip them to be constructive elements with the larger goal of a casteless, classless society. Twenty years hence, the school has nine teachers for 150 students, running classes from KG to class 8.
He is now the president of Tamilar Desiya Viduthalai Iyakkam, a forum that advocates independence of Tamil Nadu through a political process. He writes extensively on most social matters, especially Tamil nationalism, Sri Lankan Tamils and abolition of death penalty. He is among the prominent speakers in Tamil Nadu on any of these subjects.
Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/back-from-the-brink/857448/
accessed on 10th October 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Burning family alive rarest of rare crime, rules SC
NEW DELHI: Upholding death penalty to a man guilty of burning alive his wife and three children, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said the crime fell in the rarest of rare category and that the accused could not be "reformed or rehabilitated".
The case pertained to Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral of Mumbai, who, after a fight with his wife on the night of April 9-10, 2003, poured gallons of petrol on her and the children, set them on fire and fled. Four days later, he was caught in Madanganj in Ajmer district, Rajasthan.
Discussing a whole gamut of Supreme Court judgments dealing with death penalty and laying down the rarest of rare category guidelines, Justice Katju said: "In our opinion this is one of such cases. Burning living persons to death is a horrible act which causes excruciating pain to the victim, and this could not have been unknown to Gujral."
"A person like Gujral who instead of doing his duty of protecting his family kills them in such a cruel and barbaric manner cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. The balance sheet is heavily against him and accordingly we uphold the death sentence awarded to him," the bench said.
The apex court also examined the trend of death penalty worldwide and noted the divergence — 96 countries have abolished it, 34 have not used it for a considerable period of time while 58 countries still retain it.
Among the European countries, Italy abolished death penalty in 1947, followed by Germany (1949), UK (1973) and France (1981). Canada did it in 1976 and Russia has not imposed death penalty on anyone since 1996. Australia last did in 1967 before formally abolishing it in 2010.
Quoting Amnesty International data, Justice Katju said: "China executes more people than all the rest of the world put together. It has death penalty for a variety of crimes — aggravated murder, drug trafficking, large scale corruption etc."
He said the UN General Assembly in 2007-08 passed a nonbinding resolution for global moratorium of execution with a view to eventually abolishing it. "However, 65% of the world population lives in countries like China, India, Indonesia and the US which continue to apply death penalty, although both India and Indonesia use it rarely," the bench said.
In the Indian context, the bench said only the legislature could abolish death penalty and not the courts. "As long as the death penalty exists in the statute book it has to be imposed in some cases, otherwise it will tantamount to repeal of the death penalty by judiciary," it said.
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-14/india/30153982_1_death-penalty-rare-category-justice-katju
accessed on 10th October 2011
The case pertained to Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral of Mumbai, who, after a fight with his wife on the night of April 9-10, 2003, poured gallons of petrol on her and the children, set them on fire and fled. Four days later, he was caught in Madanganj in Ajmer district, Rajasthan.
Discussing a whole gamut of Supreme Court judgments dealing with death penalty and laying down the rarest of rare category guidelines, Justice Katju said: "In our opinion this is one of such cases. Burning living persons to death is a horrible act which causes excruciating pain to the victim, and this could not have been unknown to Gujral."
"A person like Gujral who instead of doing his duty of protecting his family kills them in such a cruel and barbaric manner cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. The balance sheet is heavily against him and accordingly we uphold the death sentence awarded to him," the bench said.
The apex court also examined the trend of death penalty worldwide and noted the divergence — 96 countries have abolished it, 34 have not used it for a considerable period of time while 58 countries still retain it.
Among the European countries, Italy abolished death penalty in 1947, followed by Germany (1949), UK (1973) and France (1981). Canada did it in 1976 and Russia has not imposed death penalty on anyone since 1996. Australia last did in 1967 before formally abolishing it in 2010.
Quoting Amnesty International data, Justice Katju said: "China executes more people than all the rest of the world put together. It has death penalty for a variety of crimes — aggravated murder, drug trafficking, large scale corruption etc."
He said the UN General Assembly in 2007-08 passed a nonbinding resolution for global moratorium of execution with a view to eventually abolishing it. "However, 65% of the world population lives in countries like China, India, Indonesia and the US which continue to apply death penalty, although both India and Indonesia use it rarely," the bench said.
In the Indian context, the bench said only the legislature could abolish death penalty and not the courts. "As long as the death penalty exists in the statute book it has to be imposed in some cases, otherwise it will tantamount to repeal of the death penalty by judiciary," it said.
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-14/india/30153982_1_death-penalty-rare-category-justice-katju
accessed on 10th October 2011
SC stays Ajmal Kasab’s death verdict
NEW DELHI - Supreme Court has stayed death sentence of 26/11 Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab. The Supreme Court today heard the plea of the Pakistani terrorist challenging his conviction and death sentence in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks case. Kasab, the sole convict in the case, has filed the petition through jail authorities in the apex court which had appointed senior advocate Raju Ramachandaran as amicus curie to assist it in deciding the appeal.
On September 2, the apex court had agreed to hear the plea of Maharashtra government against the acquittal of two accused Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed in the 26/11 case. It, however, had refused to pass any order on Kasab when the state government pleaded that his letter to the Supreme Court challenging his death sentence should be tagged with this appeal. The Bombay High Court had in its February 21 verdict upheld the trial court order awarding death sentence to Kasab for the "brutal and diabolical" attacks aimed at "destabilising" the government.
Source: http://www.newzfirst.com/web/guest/full-story/-/asset_publisher/Qd8l/content/sc-stays-ajmal-kasab%E2%80%99s-death-verdict?redirect=%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fhome
accessed on 10th October 2011
On September 2, the apex court had agreed to hear the plea of Maharashtra government against the acquittal of two accused Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed in the 26/11 case. It, however, had refused to pass any order on Kasab when the state government pleaded that his letter to the Supreme Court challenging his death sentence should be tagged with this appeal. The Bombay High Court had in its February 21 verdict upheld the trial court order awarding death sentence to Kasab for the "brutal and diabolical" attacks aimed at "destabilising" the government.
Source: http://www.newzfirst.com/web/guest/full-story/-/asset_publisher/Qd8l/content/sc-stays-ajmal-kasab%E2%80%99s-death-verdict?redirect=%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fhome
accessed on 10th October 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Grey area between life and death
CHENNAI: So, legally speaking, what lies between life and death? A lot of grey area, really. Indian criminal jurisprudence does not prescribe death as punishment for a particular offence, however heinous the crime may be. For instance, the maximum punishment provided for in our statute book is not death. Instead, it is "death sentence or life imprisonment."
After holding a person guilty of having committed a heinous offence, a judge has neither legislative policy nor legal principles nor judicial precedents for guidance to impose an appropriate punishment. While highlighting this lacuna, legendary jurist Justice P N Bhagwati says whether it would be a mere life imprisonment or death sentence is decided by the judge's "unguided discretion". In other words, what qualifies as "rarest of rare cases" warranting capital punishment is to be decided on a case to case basis by the judges concerned.
The enormity of this observation would hit us if we apply it on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
For some reasons, the special TADA court here found all the 26 persons guilty of committing a rarest of rare offence and imposed death sentence on all in 1996. The appeals directly went to the Supreme Court. In 1998, the Supreme Court confirmed death only for four and the remaining convicts simply walked free. In 2000 the death sentence of one of these four, Nalini Sriharan, was commuted to life after a state cabinet recommendation.
From being a part of the 26-strong death convict group, now only three are staring down the barrel.
The Amnesty International, while advocating the total abolition of death sentence throughout the world, cites three reasons to do away with the punishment. Firstly, adopting a religious attitude, it says life is a gift of God/nature, and none except God/nature has any right to take it away.
Secondly, citing economic disparity, it says a litigant's inability to afford a good lawyer has direct nexus to the quantum of punishment. The Amnesty cites the fact that about 90 per cent of convicts in various prisons in the world are underprivileged who could not pay hefty fee to a good lawyer. Thirdly, the fallibility of human judgment is a reason enough not to kill a person even by lawful procedure.
There are, however, judicial officers who feel they have been truly judicious and balanced in choosing cases to award death sentence. "In my 28 year service, nine years of which as sessions judge having power to impose capital punishment, I have not exercised the option even once. Not that I am against death punishment. I have not yet come across that 'rarest of rare case'. We are responsible people. I will not hesitate to award death penalty if acase deserves," a sessions judge told The Times of India.
He says the death penalty should remain in the statute book, to be invoked in deserving cases. "Even if it is not used even once, it will instill a sense of fear in habitual offenders and act as deterrence," he says. Incidentally, the Vellore central prison, where the three condemned prisoners involved in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case are lodged, has a total of six death row convicts and 290 life convicts. A tell-tale evidence that extreme judicial restraint is being exercised before noose is put around a person's neck.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Grey-area-between-life-and-death/articleshow/9805450.cms
Times of India
TNN | Aug 31, 2011, 08.10AM IST
After holding a person guilty of having committed a heinous offence, a judge has neither legislative policy nor legal principles nor judicial precedents for guidance to impose an appropriate punishment. While highlighting this lacuna, legendary jurist Justice P N Bhagwati says whether it would be a mere life imprisonment or death sentence is decided by the judge's "unguided discretion". In other words, what qualifies as "rarest of rare cases" warranting capital punishment is to be decided on a case to case basis by the judges concerned.
The enormity of this observation would hit us if we apply it on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
For some reasons, the special TADA court here found all the 26 persons guilty of committing a rarest of rare offence and imposed death sentence on all in 1996. The appeals directly went to the Supreme Court. In 1998, the Supreme Court confirmed death only for four and the remaining convicts simply walked free. In 2000 the death sentence of one of these four, Nalini Sriharan, was commuted to life after a state cabinet recommendation.
From being a part of the 26-strong death convict group, now only three are staring down the barrel.
The Amnesty International, while advocating the total abolition of death sentence throughout the world, cites three reasons to do away with the punishment. Firstly, adopting a religious attitude, it says life is a gift of God/nature, and none except God/nature has any right to take it away.
Secondly, citing economic disparity, it says a litigant's inability to afford a good lawyer has direct nexus to the quantum of punishment. The Amnesty cites the fact that about 90 per cent of convicts in various prisons in the world are underprivileged who could not pay hefty fee to a good lawyer. Thirdly, the fallibility of human judgment is a reason enough not to kill a person even by lawful procedure.
There are, however, judicial officers who feel they have been truly judicious and balanced in choosing cases to award death sentence. "In my 28 year service, nine years of which as sessions judge having power to impose capital punishment, I have not exercised the option even once. Not that I am against death punishment. I have not yet come across that 'rarest of rare case'. We are responsible people. I will not hesitate to award death penalty if acase deserves," a sessions judge told The Times of India.
He says the death penalty should remain in the statute book, to be invoked in deserving cases. "Even if it is not used even once, it will instill a sense of fear in habitual offenders and act as deterrence," he says. Incidentally, the Vellore central prison, where the three condemned prisoners involved in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case are lodged, has a total of six death row convicts and 290 life convicts. A tell-tale evidence that extreme judicial restraint is being exercised before noose is put around a person's neck.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Grey-area-between-life-and-death/articleshow/9805450.cms
Times of India
TNN | Aug 31, 2011, 08.10AM IST
India court confirms death penalty for Red Fort attack
India's Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence of Ashfaq Arif, a Pakistani man convicted of attacking an army barracks at Delhi's Red Fort.
Arif, a Lashkar-e-Taiba militant, was convicted for masterminding the attack.
He was given the death penalty by a local court. The Delhi high court confirmed the sentence in 2007.
Three people died in the December 2000 attack on the 17th Century fort, one of India's most famous landmarks. The raid strained relations with Pakistan.
Arif was arrested along with his wife, Rehmana Yousuf Farooqui, four days after the raid and found guilty of murder, criminal conspiracy and waging war against India.
The trial court convicted him and six others in October 2005.
He was sentenced to death, while the others received jail terms of varying length.
In September 2007, the high court upheld his conviction, but ordered the release of the others for lack of evidence.
The authorities said two militants entered the Red Fort - then being used as an army garrison - on the night of 22 December, 2000.
The gunmen attacked an army supply depot, killing two soldiers and a guard, before escaping.
The Pakistan based militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba, said it carried out the attack, which strained relations between India and Pakistan.
The Red Fort was the seat of Mughal rule until 1857, when India began to be governed by the British.
Indian troops left the fort in December 2003, after which it was handed over to the tourism ministry.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14471793
10 August 2011 Last updated at 08:30 GMT
News South Asia
Arif, a Lashkar-e-Taiba militant, was convicted for masterminding the attack.
He was given the death penalty by a local court. The Delhi high court confirmed the sentence in 2007.
Three people died in the December 2000 attack on the 17th Century fort, one of India's most famous landmarks. The raid strained relations with Pakistan.
Arif was arrested along with his wife, Rehmana Yousuf Farooqui, four days after the raid and found guilty of murder, criminal conspiracy and waging war against India.
The trial court convicted him and six others in October 2005.
He was sentenced to death, while the others received jail terms of varying length.
In September 2007, the high court upheld his conviction, but ordered the release of the others for lack of evidence.
The authorities said two militants entered the Red Fort - then being used as an army garrison - on the night of 22 December, 2000.
The gunmen attacked an army supply depot, killing two soldiers and a guard, before escaping.
The Pakistan based militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba, said it carried out the attack, which strained relations between India and Pakistan.
The Red Fort was the seat of Mughal rule until 1857, when India began to be governed by the British.
Indian troops left the fort in December 2003, after which it was handed over to the tourism ministry.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14471793
10 August 2011 Last updated at 08:30 GMT
News South Asia
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Rajiv Gandhi assassination: HC stays execution of 3 killers
Ten days before they were to hang, three Rajiv Gandhi killers today got a reprieve from the Madras High Court which stayed their execution for eight weeks even as the
Tamil Nadu Assembly in an unprecedented unanimous resolution appealed to the President to reconsider their mercy pleas.
Stopping the execution set for September 9, a Bench comprising justices C Nagappan and M Sathayanarayanan issued notices to the Centre, the state government and the police, observing there had been a delay of over 11 years in the disposal of their petitions seeking Presidential clemency.
Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan, lodged in Vellore Jail, were convicted and sentenced to death in the case relating to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi during an election rally at Sriperumpudur on May 21, 1991 by an LTTE suicide bomber.
“The High Court is doing justice. Be sure. They have stayed the execution,” Ram Jethmalani, who pleaded their case, told reporters after the court's interim order.
Jethmalani, Colin Gonsalves and R Vaigai, appearing for the three convicts, contended the “inordinate and inexplicable delay” in disposing of their mercy petitions violated Article 21 of the Constitution (Protection of life and personal liberty).
Shortly before the High Court order, the Assembly unanimously adopted the resolution moved by Jayalalithaa requesting President Pratibha Patil to reconsider the mercy petitions rejected early this month.
A huge crowd outside the court cheered the interim order that was keenly awaited by leaders of several political parties and human rights groups who have launched a campaign to save the lives of the three convicts.
MDMK leader Vaiko, who has been strongly pleading for their release, was also present in court.
The delay of 11 years in deciding their mercy plea was “mental torture” for the convicts, said Jethmalani. “You make them suffer a thousand times. Is this justice?” Jethmalani asked.
In the Assembly, bowing to pressure from various political leaders, Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa moved the resolution urging the President to commute the death sentences of the three convicts.
She said the people of the state were “saddened” by the fact that the death sentence was to be executed soon.
The move by Jayalalithaa came a day after she told the Assembly that she did not have the power to annul the death sentence or put their execution on hold after the rejection of their mercy plea by the President.
“Many political parties have appealed to me to commute death sentences and in order to respect the sentiments of the people of the state, I appeal to the members of the house to pass the resolution unanimously,” she said.
The court order and the Assembly initiative were welcomed by Perarivalan's family members, present in the court.
His mother Arputhammal claimed all three condemned prisoners were innocent and should be allowed to live.
“I was in grief on whether I would get my son back. But Amma (Jayalalithaa) has passed a resolution and has given me joy. She has given me hope of bringing back my son. I am extremely happy. I don't know how to express my happiness. I am thankful to all those who worked for this,” she told reporters.
“Everyone has struggled for my son and this support should be there till my son is released,” she said before breaking down.
Perarivalan's father Kuyildasan said the stay was due to the efforts of the people and lawyers.
Welcoming the adoption of the resolution in the Assembly, he said different parties have come together to request the President to reconsider the mercy petitions.
Perarivalan's sister said she had immense faith in the judiciary. “This is only a stay. What we want is complete release.”
The three convicts were sentenced to death in 1999, along with Nalini, who is married to Murugan. After Nalini gave birth to a baby girl in jail, her death sentence was commuted to life following a request made by Sonia Gandhi.
Source:http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-hc-stays-execution-of-3-killers/839197/
Indian Express
Posted: Tue Aug 30 2011, 11:23 hrs
Tamil Nadu Assembly in an unprecedented unanimous resolution appealed to the President to reconsider their mercy pleas.
Stopping the execution set for September 9, a Bench comprising justices C Nagappan and M Sathayanarayanan issued notices to the Centre, the state government and the police, observing there had been a delay of over 11 years in the disposal of their petitions seeking Presidential clemency.
Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan, lodged in Vellore Jail, were convicted and sentenced to death in the case relating to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi during an election rally at Sriperumpudur on May 21, 1991 by an LTTE suicide bomber.
“The High Court is doing justice. Be sure. They have stayed the execution,” Ram Jethmalani, who pleaded their case, told reporters after the court's interim order.
Jethmalani, Colin Gonsalves and R Vaigai, appearing for the three convicts, contended the “inordinate and inexplicable delay” in disposing of their mercy petitions violated Article 21 of the Constitution (Protection of life and personal liberty).
Shortly before the High Court order, the Assembly unanimously adopted the resolution moved by Jayalalithaa requesting President Pratibha Patil to reconsider the mercy petitions rejected early this month.
A huge crowd outside the court cheered the interim order that was keenly awaited by leaders of several political parties and human rights groups who have launched a campaign to save the lives of the three convicts.
MDMK leader Vaiko, who has been strongly pleading for their release, was also present in court.
The delay of 11 years in deciding their mercy plea was “mental torture” for the convicts, said Jethmalani. “You make them suffer a thousand times. Is this justice?” Jethmalani asked.
In the Assembly, bowing to pressure from various political leaders, Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa moved the resolution urging the President to commute the death sentences of the three convicts.
She said the people of the state were “saddened” by the fact that the death sentence was to be executed soon.
The move by Jayalalithaa came a day after she told the Assembly that she did not have the power to annul the death sentence or put their execution on hold after the rejection of their mercy plea by the President.
“Many political parties have appealed to me to commute death sentences and in order to respect the sentiments of the people of the state, I appeal to the members of the house to pass the resolution unanimously,” she said.
The court order and the Assembly initiative were welcomed by Perarivalan's family members, present in the court.
His mother Arputhammal claimed all three condemned prisoners were innocent and should be allowed to live.
“I was in grief on whether I would get my son back. But Amma (Jayalalithaa) has passed a resolution and has given me joy. She has given me hope of bringing back my son. I am extremely happy. I don't know how to express my happiness. I am thankful to all those who worked for this,” she told reporters.
“Everyone has struggled for my son and this support should be there till my son is released,” she said before breaking down.
Perarivalan's father Kuyildasan said the stay was due to the efforts of the people and lawyers.
Welcoming the adoption of the resolution in the Assembly, he said different parties have come together to request the President to reconsider the mercy petitions.
Perarivalan's sister said she had immense faith in the judiciary. “This is only a stay. What we want is complete release.”
The three convicts were sentenced to death in 1999, along with Nalini, who is married to Murugan. After Nalini gave birth to a baby girl in jail, her death sentence was commuted to life following a request made by Sonia Gandhi.
Source:http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-hc-stays-execution-of-3-killers/839197/
Indian Express
Posted: Tue Aug 30 2011, 11:23 hrs
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Kasab moves SC against death penalty
NEW DELHI: Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab has challenged his conviction and death sentence in the Supreme Court, which has asked for trial court records.
"The Supreme Court received a petition from Kasab through Mumbai's Arthur Road Jail authorities two months back and the registry has asked for the trial court records from the special judge," apex court sources said.
The Bombay High Court had on February 21 upheld the trial court's order convicting Kasab as well as its order for acquittal of alleged Indian co-conspirators Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed.
Source: Times of India
TNN Jul 30, 2011, 02.03am IST
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-30/india/29832746_1_ajmal-kasab-trial-court-cama-hospital
"The Supreme Court received a petition from Kasab through Mumbai's Arthur Road Jail authorities two months back and the registry has asked for the trial court records from the special judge," apex court sources said.
The Bombay High Court had on February 21 upheld the trial court's order convicting Kasab as well as its order for acquittal of alleged Indian co-conspirators Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed.
Source: Times of India
TNN Jul 30, 2011, 02.03am IST
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-30/india/29832746_1_ajmal-kasab-trial-court-cama-hospital
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)