HC upholds death to minor's rapist-killer

TNN | Jul 16, 2014, 12.46 AM IST BHOPAL: Madhya Pradesh high court (MPHC) on Tuesday upheld the death sentence awarded to Feroz Khan, charged with rape and murder of a 4-year-old girl in Seoni district. Double bench of MPHC comprising Justice Ajit Singh and Justice NK Gupta said the act was rarest of the rare and upheld the decision of the district and sessions court, which awarded capital punishment to Feroz in October 26 last year. The girl was abducted from her house in Ghansore on April 17 and abandoned in the fields after being raped. Later, on finding her lying unconscious on the fields, villagers took the girl to a hospital in Jabalpur. After her condition deteriorated on April 20, she was airlifted to Care Hospital of Nagpur, where she succumbed on April 30. Feroz, a welder working in Jhabua Power Plant, is a resident of Dhimra village in Bihar's Banka district. He was arrested from his maternal uncles' place in Hussainabad in Bhagalpur district of Bihar on April 23. Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/HC-upholds-death-to-minors-rapist-killer/articleshow/38442294.cms [last accessed 06.02.2015]

SC reserves order on issue of review of death sentences

Press Trust of India | New Delhi July 15, 2014 Last Updated at 20:49 IST The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on a plea challenging the apex court rule which comes in the way of allowing open court oral hearing for re-examining its verdict on death sentence through review petition. The issue was examined by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice R M Lodha which will also pronounce its verdict whether the appeal in the cases of death sentence should be adjudicated by three-judge bench or should be referred to five judge-bench. The court was hearing a batch of petitions in which these issues are raised by some condemned prisoners including Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist Mohd Arif alias Ashfaq, who is facing the gallows for his involvement in the 2000 Red Fort attack case in which three people, including two Army jawans, were killed. The common issues have also been raised by death row convict in the 1993 Mumbai blast case -- Yakub Abdul Razak Memon and three such convicts Muniappan, Nedunchezhian and Ravindran in the Dharmapuri bus burning incident of Tamil Nadu, in which three college girls were killed. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar submitted that there was no need to tinker with the constitutionality of Order 40, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court which deals with adjudication of Review Petition through circulation in death penalty cases. He said that allowing oral hearing in open court would lead to rehearing of the case and further it would amount to an appeal of the verdict of the apex court itself. "The exercise of review jurisdiction is not the exercise of the appeallate jurisdiction. Review petitions only concerns relook matter," he told the bench also comprising justices J S Khehar, J Chelameswar, A K Sikri, and R F Nariman. The law officer said there should be a finality to a case which is decided after continuous judicial application of mind from the trial court to High Court and then finally in the Supreme Court. He also said there was no need to refer the appeal in death penalty matters to five-judges bench. Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/sc-reserves-order-on-issue-of-review-of-death-sentences-114071501263_1.html [last accessed 06.02.2015]

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]