Rajiv's killers: NDA move may bring sanity to the death penalty debate

by R Jagannathan Jul 25, 2014 22:06 IST If the execution or commutation of a death sentence is not to remain a political football, it is clear that the current process is simply untenable. The NDA government has raised an important question on the issue: can the release of a convict be something that is only between him and the government? If this idea is taken to its logical conclusion, it will balance and bring sanity to the death penalty debate. According to this Times of India report, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar this week asked the five-judge Supreme Court bench which is hearing the case for freeing the killers of Rajiv Gandhi a pointed question: “Should the relatives of those killed in the blast (that killed Rajiv and 17 others) be not permitted to challenge the Supreme Court's decision to commute the death sentences of the condemned prisoners? Would it be correct to decide the issues relating to (the) remission granted to prisoners, whose death penalty had been commuted to life imprisonment, be decided merely on an application made by the convict to the government?” 

 This is a great question, and, in fact, is the missing link in questions about the death penalty. It is also vital to reducing the element of political arbitrariness in the execution of death penalties, their commutation, et al. In 2012 and 2013, Ajmal Kasab, the Pakistani terrorist who was part of the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai, and Afzal Guru, who was convicted for the December 2011 attack on parliament, were hanged after long delays. The Congress-led UPA, which had been dithering all along, confirmed the executions – one suspects – largely to show it can be tougher than Narendra Modi, then emerging as the real challenger to the UPA. 

Kasab was executed just ahead of the Gujarat assembly elections, and Afzal Guru a few months after that – just as the BJP was seeking to make Modi the prime ministerial candidate. But then a strange thing happened. Several other convicted assassins – Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan, all convicted for the killing of Rajiv Gandhi, and Balwant Singh Rajaona, convicted for the assassination of former Punjab CM Beant Singh – were spared the noose. And last year, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence on Rajiv’s killers on the plea that by delaying their executions so much, an injustice was done to them and their families. It is clear why Kasab and Guru went to the gallows and why Rajaona and the Rajiv’s killers did not – the former did not have strong political backing, while the latter two had political godfathers in the Punjab and Tamil Nadu governmentswhich moved to save them from the gallows (allegedly in deference to public sentiment). And after the Supreme Court commuted the death sentences of Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa hastily announced a decision to let them go free. This blatantly political act forced the Supreme Court to stay their release last April, and in the process new ideas are coming to the fore — as evidenced by the Solicitor-General’s posers to the Supreme Court bench, which is headed by Chief Justice RM Lodha. Thus far, those who want to abolish the death penalty have been focusing too much attention on the convicts and their families, thinking little about the families of the victims. But if death sentences and their commutation, and even the release of convicts, can be decided without any reference to the real victims — the families of those affected by the acts of killers — how can justice be said to be done? Revenge and the need for punishment of criminals is not just about the state doing its bit. It is also about bringing closure to the families of the victims as well. In the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, it was not only Rajiv who got killed in the blast set off by LTTE suicide bomber Dhanu. Seventeen others, including policemen, were killed and scores injured. Their families have suffered. How can the law presume that the agony of a killer’s relatives is greater than that of the families of the people they killed, maimed or injured? If delay in carrying out a death sentence is agony for the former, it is doubly so for the victims. A killer freed may make his family celebrate, but can the families of the victims feel happy about this? The Solicitor-General has done well to bring parity to the process of accepting or rejecting mercy pleas. 

A formal structure to obtain the inputs of the families of the victims is vital to the process of justice. There are several good and practical reasons why victims’ kin must be brought into the picture. One, it makes for a better form of closure. If the families of the victim are willing to forgive and forget, any commutation will carry more moral weight. If not, they are merely abiding by the court’s final decision. Two, by giving the families a say, many such decisions can be taken out of the ambit of politics. In the Rajiv killers case, while politicians are seeking brownie points by pretending to feel for the convicts and their cause of Tamil Eelam, the real victims – the families of the 17 others killed – were simply left out of this empathy process. 

Now, if they agreed to the commutation and release, it would be a case of truly forgiving and forgetting. If they don’t agree, it frees the state government from having to prove to the electorate it had sympathy for the killers’ families. Three, in the Afzal Guru case, where the Kashmir sentiment was ignored because it was unimportant in the larger context of Indian politics, the government ended up shamefully hanging him and not even intimating his family in time. Now, Guru has been elevated to a big hero in the Valley. But if the victims of the Parliament attack had formally been brought into the picture, he would have been less of a hero. Guru would, in this case, not just be the victim of arbitrary justice, but paying for his sins. 

 There is a strong case for giving due weightage to the feelings of the families of victims when it comes to taking decisions about the death penalty. PS: A lot of arguments were raised on twitter, subsequent to the publication of this post, about letting the kin of victims have a say in the commutation of a death sentence or the release of convicts. I would like to clarify that I am not calling for the kin to have a say in what penalty should be awarded for a crime, but only about having a say in the post-judicial phase. I believe the kin of the victims should be consulted in case the government wants to commute a sentence. It can still take its own decision, but consulting kin would, according to me, allow the government to take their feelings into account while deciding. A forgive-and-forget attitude from the kin would help a decision in favour of clemency. I am not suggesting a veto to the kin, nor any say for them in deciding the punishment. 

Source: http://www.firstpost.com/india/rajivs-killers-nda-move-may-bring-sanity-death-penalty-debate-1634377.html [last accessed 06.02.2015]

Court awards death sentence to acid attacker

Jul 25, 2014 at 03:14pm IST

Press Trust India

In a significant judgement, a youth has been sentenced to death by a local court for throwing acid on a woman following which she died. Additional Sessions Judge at Ambah in the district KC Gupta on Thursday awarded capital punishment to Jogendra Tomar (28), who had thrown acid on the face of Ruby Rawat (24) last year at her house in Porsa town of Morena, after she rejected his demand to live with him. Ruby had later succumbed to her injuries. The judge observed that the crime committed by Jogendra was heinous and that merely awarding him life imprisonment would not have been enough.

"It is because of this that I have decided to give him the death sentence," he further observed. Enraged over Ruby's refusal to live with him, Jogendra, who is married, went to her house in Porsa on July 21 last year and threw acid on her face while she was sleeping. He also threw acid on some family members who tried to rescue Ruby. They had also sustained injuries in the attack.

Tomar was later arrested following a complaint filed against him by the deceased's father, Dataram. Police had registered a case under IPC sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (a) (causing permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person) and 450 (house-trespass in order to commit offence).

Source: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/court-awards-death-sentence-to-acid-attacker/488199-3-236.html [last accessed 06.02.2015]

Bombay HC upholds conviction of Pune rogue driver

July 24, 2014 - 7:40:45 am

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court yesterday upheld the conviction of Santosh Mane, a state transport corporation driver who had mowed down nine pedestrians and injured 37 others in Pune in 2012. A division bench comprising Justice VM Kanade and Justice PD Kode also rejected Mane’s plea that he was ‘insane’ at the time of the incident. The court fixed August 5 for awarding the quantum of sentence to Mane, who was convicted by a lower court in Pune last year. Pune Sessions Court Additional Sessions Judge V.K. Shewale had April 8, 2013 pronounced the death sentence for Mane, terming it as “a rarest of rare” crimes.

Mane (36), was convicted under Indian Penal Code sections pertaining to murder, attempt to murder, theft and damage to public property. However, when the sentence came up for confirmation by the Bombay High Court, Mane challenged the conviction and claimed he was of unsound mind at the time of the incident. Both matters -- the confirmation of the death sentence and his challenge to the conviction -- were heard simultaneously by the court. Rejecting his plea for psychiatric examination, the Bombay High Court in September 2013 had set aside the death sentence awarded to Mane on grounds that the lower court had not heard him on the point of the sentence.

It referred the matter back to the Pune Sessions Court, directing it to hear Mane again on the issue of the death sentence. The Pune court heard him out, and again awarded the death penalty, which he challenged in the high court. On January 25, 2012, Mane had hijacked a Satara-bound bus of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) from the Swargate depot and sped it through the crowded roads of Pune, catching morning peak hour commuters unawares.

In his wild 15-km ride, lasting 45 minutes, he knocked down scores of people and damaged more than two dozen public and private vehicles before he was nabbed. Meanwhile in Siliguri, a fresh autopsy of a West Bengal school teacher who died in judicial custody in Uttar Pradesh was conducted Wednesday, as demonstrators carrying his body blocked the national highway and fought pitched battles with police in Darjeeling district.

Trouble broke out for the second day yesterday night, as a mob put up road blocks on national highway 34 at Bihar More in Bagdogra. The fresh disturbances started after police handed over the body of Ganesh Chowdhury to his family members after the second autopsy. Claiming Chowdhury was killed in judicial custody in Uttar Pradesh, the demonstrators demanded a proper investigation and the opening of a murder case. They also demanded “exemplary punishment” to those responsible for his death. The demonstrators pelted stones and fought pitched battle with police when the authorities tried to remove the road blockades.

“We were attacked by the mob. So, we were forced to baton-charge the demonstrators,” said Siliguri Deputy Commissioner of Police OG Pal. Earlier, a few hundred people demonstrated with Chowdhury’s body outside the Bagdogra police station, demanding a repeat post-mortem examination. Uttar Pradesh Police had earlier conducted a post-mortem examination, which was “not to the satisfaction” of his family members. “Following an appeal from Chowdhury’s family, the Darjeeling district magistrate ordered a second post-mortem examination which was done during the day (Wednesday) at the North Bengal Medical College and Hospital (NBMCH),” Siliguri sub-divisional officer Deepap Priya P said.

Chowdhury of Bagdogra was employed as a teacher in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh. He died in judicial custody in Azamgarh after his arrest in a kidnapping case. His family members claimed he was in a relationship with the school owner’s daughter. As the girl’s father was against the marriage, the couple eloped. Following a police complaint, the teacher’s father and brother were arrested. When Chowdhury came to know of this, he surrendered to police and was sent to judicial custody, said his brother-in-law Lal Babu Kamath. Uttar Pradesh Police claimed he fell ill in custody and died in a hospital Monday.

NBMCH forensic department head Rajiv Prasad said the vicera report will be available after a month. In Ghaziabad police yesterday registered a criminal case against two unidentified people over the mysterious death of 31-year-old Rajya Sabha TV producer Milita Dutta Mandal, who died at her residence in Vaishali. “We have registered a case. The two people have not been identified as the CCTV camera was not working at the time when the crime took place. But the apartment’s security guard told us that two people had come by a car at the time of the incident,” a police official said.

Asked about the post-mortem report, Ghaziabad police said their Delhi counterparts were looking after that. IANS

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/bombay-hc-upholds-conviction-of-pune-rogue-driver-114072301781_1.html [last accessed 09 April 2015]

President rejected mercy petitions of Nithari killer Surinder Koli and 5 others

19 July 2014

Pranab Mukherjee, the President of India on 18 July 2014 rejected the mercy petitions of Nithari serial killer Surinder Koli and five other death row convicts. These five death row convicts are Renukabai and Seema (Maharashtra), Koli (Uttar Pradesh), Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik (Mahasrashtra), Jagdish (Madhya Pradesh) and Holiram Bordoloi (Assam).

The President rejected the mercy petitions of the six death row convicts on the advice of the Union Home Ministry which rejected the mercy petitions of all the convicts on 18 June 2014. The six death row convicts may still challenge the rejection of their mercy petition on the grounds of inordinate delay. In February 2014, the SC bench had commuted the death sentence of 15 convicts to life imprisonment on the grounds of inordinate delay and mental illness. Though the SC bench had not quantified the inordinate delays but in all the cases the delay ranged from 7 to 11 years.

In at least two cases, the gap between upholding of death sentence and rejection of clemency plea is not more than three years so in any case these cases might not qualify under inordinate delay. These relate to upholding of death sentence by SC of Surinder Koli in 2011 and that of Wasnik in 2012. As for the other cases, the death penalty for the two sisters was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2006 and that Holiram Bordoloi in 2005. t will be interestingly to see whether this is viewed as "inordinate" delay on part of the Executive in deciding their mercy pleas.

Source: http://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/president-rejected-mercy-petitions-of-nithari-killer-surinder-koli-and-5-others-1405753592-1 [last accessed 06.02.2015]

Government opposes Red Fort convict’s plea against death sentence

Wed, Jul 16, 2014

New Delhi: The central government on Tuesday opposed the December 22, 2000 Red Fort terror attack convict Mohamed Arif’s plea that his death sentence should not be carried out since he has already undergone life sentence of nearly 14 years and could not be punished twice for the same offence. Its stand came as the Supreme Court reserved its order on a batch of petitions that contended that an appeal in a death sentence case be heard by five judges bench and review of the court’s order (on the appeal) too be heard in an open court.

The convict (Arif’s) availed the judicial remedies by filing appeals, and the time spent during the disposal of those appeals could not be counted as if he had undergone the sentence, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar told the constitution bench of Chief Justice R.M.Lodha, Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice A.K.Sikri and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman. “Arif has taken a chance of court procedure. Mere pendency of the matter can’t treated as if he undergoing sentence,” the SG told the court counting the dates and years when he moved the high court and the apex court including filing a review and then curative petition.

In a death case if anything is pending then death sentence would not be carried out

“In a death case if anything is pending then death sentence would not be carried out,” Ranjit Kumar said. Earlier in the course of the hearing, the SG, opposing the open court hearing of the review petition, told the court that it was different from an appeal against the order of the lower court and thus the scope of hearing the two was also different. At present the review petitions are decided by the judges in their chambers through circulations.

Ranjit Kumar told the court that a review plea could only be taken up in the open court for oral hearing provided some new issues or points have been raised which were not before any of the courts in the earlier hearings of the case. He said that plea for an oral hearing of the review petition in the open court could not be camouflaged as an appeal against the apex court’s earlier order in the matter. At this, the court said that in deciding the death sentence cases, the court has to balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and in striking that balance, there can be an error – which can be pointed out in the course of the open hearing of the review petition.

Chief Justice Lodha said that the error may be one in million cases but even that one case is important in advancing the course of justice as it involves a human life – the loss of which is irreversible. The court also suggesting framing of guidelines for hearing the review petitions in death sentence cases in open court. “One way could be framing of the guidelines under which the matter could be sought to be heard in open court in a review petition,” the court said trying to find some common ground. Ranjit Kumar however said that these guidelines could not be strait-jacketed and have to be applicable from case to case depending on their categories.

The court reserved its order on a batch of petitions including Lashkar-e-Taiba militant Arif alias Ashfaq, 1993 Mumbai bomb blast death row convict Yakub Abdul Razak Memon and Nedunchezhiyan, Ravindran and C. Muniappan, all convicted and sentenced for setting on fire a bus carrying students of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in February 2000 to protest the sentencing of Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.

Source: http://www.indileak.com/government-opposes-red-fort-convicts-plea-against-death-sentence/ [last accessed 06.02.2015]

Supreme Court puts off execution of two men convicted of 2012 Delhi rape

NEW DELHI Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:32pm IST

A police bus carrying four men who were found guilty of the fatal gang-rape of a young woman on a bus, arrives at a court in New Delhi September 13, 2013.

CREDIT: REUTERS/ADNAN ABIDI/FILES

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the execution of two men convicted of the murder of a woman who was gang-raped and tortured on a bus in New Delhi, pending their appeal, their lawyer said, in a case that caused nationwide outrage. Gym instructor Vinay Sharma and bus cleaner Akshay Kumar Singh, along with two others, were convicted last year over the December 2012 attack. "The police and the prosecution have falsely implicated them in the case," defence lawyer A.P. Singh said, saying he planned to continue to argue for their acquittal.

In March, the Supreme Court put on hold the execution of two others convicted in the case - fruit-seller Pawan Gupta and unemployed Mukesh Singh - while they appealed. It is not unusual for legal cases to drag on for years in India while convicts appeal. The victim, who worked in a call centre while she studied, became a symbol of the daily dangers women face in a country where a rape is reported on average every 21 minutes and acid attacks and incidents of molestation are common. During the seven-month trial, a fifth defendant hanged himself in his cell. A sixth, who was under 18 at the time of the attack, was sentenced to three years' detention, the maximum allowed under juvenile law.

The minister for women and child development, Maneka Gandhi, told reporters on Sunday that juveniles accused of crimes such as rape and murder should be treated on a par with adult offenders. In response to the public outcry after the rape, the government fast-tracked tougher laws against sex crimes, but it resisted calls to change the law relating to juveniles under 18. 

(Reporting by Sruthi Gottipati and Suchitra Mohanty; Editing by Frank Jack Daniel and Janet Lawrence)

Source: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/14/india-gangrape-idINKBN0FJ16T20140714 [last accessed 06.02.2015]

Nitish Katara's murder honour killing, warrants death penalty

Press Trust of India | New Delhi 

July 11, 2014 Last Updated at 18:58 IST

Nitish Katara's murder was a honour killing for which the three convicts, including UP politician D P Yadav's son Vikas, deserve death penalty, the victim's mother today told the Delhi High Court. "The trial court as well as this court have already held that this is a case of honour killing. I want to add one thing that the honour killing falls under the the rarest of rare category of cases warranting imposition of death penalty," the counsel for Neelam Katara told a bench of justices Gita Mittal and J R Midha. 

Concluding the arguments on the quantum of sentence, lawyer P K Dey said "the circumstances in which victim Nitish was killed entails award of death penalty, nothing less than this. One person was killed in such a brutal manner and later burnt. It is honour killing, which is the rarest of rare offence." Assailing the lower court's order, the lawyer said "it (the burning of body and subsequent actions) is not merely the destruction of evidence. It is total disregard to a human body. The incident is diabolic and shook the consciousness of the society." 

Seeking enhancement of the sentence, the counsel said the one of the convicts has committed eleven offences from 2002 to 2013 and they are not only criminal offences but amounted to interfering with the judicial administration. Though the trial court had held the murder as "honour killing", it did not give them death penalty saying imposition of life sentence would act as a deterrent, Dey said. 

"It may be true in other cases that life term is harsher punishment as a convict dies every minute in jail but not in this case where the convicts are economically and politically very strong and come out of jail within two or three years," he said. 

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/nitish-katara-s-murder-honour-killing-warrants-death-penalty-114071101082_1.html [last accessed 06.02.2015]