Three years ago, Pakistani terrorist Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab and his accomplices created mayhem in Mumbai and killed 166 innocent people. The lone captured terrorist of the 26/11 attack has since been enjoying Indian ‘hospitality’ at Mumbai’s Arthur Road jail with the government spending Rs16 crore on the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant.
The Supreme Court will hear some ‘interesting’ arguments in favour of Kasab who was awarded the death penalty on five counts. Earlier this year, Kasab filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the death sentence awarded to him.
Noted lawyer Raju Ramachandran who will defend Kasab in the hearing scheduled to begin on January 29, 2012, refused to comment. “I am merely responding to the call of professional duty,” he said. Ramachandran’s junior Gaurav Aggarwal has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court (a copy of which is with DNA) in defence of Kasab.
On of the major arguments that will be made to defend Kasab is that contrary to the charge, he did not wage war against India. The argument is that unlike Parliament and the Red Fort, the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) in Mumbai where Kasab and his accomplice Abu Ismail fired indiscriminately at innocents is not the symbol of authority of the Republic of India.
CST is owned by the railway ministry — an instrument of the Union government. Attacking a railway station or a hospital (Cama) does not amount to waging war against the government of India is the defence.
DNA has learnt that Ramachandran will also question the test identification parade (TIP) by the investigating agencies of a blood-soaked Kasab following the attack. Kasab’s photographs and visuals were flashed across the print and electronic media after the 26/11 attack and he was painted as the culprit. The argument of Kasab’s legal team is that no legally valid TIP was done to check the veracity of allegations that it was indeed Kasab and his accomplices who had attacked places such as CST and Cama hospital.
Aggarwal’s appeal also seeks to point out that a ‘foreigner’ like Kasab cannot be expected to know the law of the country. Sources said Kasab was forced to make a confession before a magistrate without being offered the services of a lawyer. Though he retracted his statement during the trial, he was awarded the death penalty for waging war against India.
“The courts, however, ignored the fact that Kasab did not know the gravity of the confession he made to the magistrate,” a source said. “Therefore, the conviction based on Kasab’s questionable confession is illegal by law and by retracting his statement, Kasab vitiated the trial.”
Ramchandran is expected to take six days to complete his arguments while former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium could take a bit longer to prove that Kasab is not innocent. A two-judge bench of justices Aftab Alam and CK Prasad will hear Kasab’s appeal from January 29, 2012.
“If everything goes according to the case calendar, the Supreme Court could pronounce its verdict around the beginning of April,” a source said.
Kasab who is facing the death penalty on five counts has used all possible ploys to extract the most out of the liberal humanitarian aspects of the Indian Constitution and the legal system. He had earlier said he was a teenager and a foreign national who was tutored by a terror group and did not deserve the death penalty awarded by a foreign court.
He also wrote to the chief justice of India from the Arthur Road jail, seeking suspension of the capital sentence. In his letter, Kasab also expressed his inability to hire a lawyer to defend him. Taking note of the letter, the Supreme Court stayed Kasab’s execution and urged Ramachandran to prepare Kasab’s defence and file a proper special leave petition.
Ramachandran’s legal acumen is well known as he was a lawyer for the Volcker Commission inquiry panel that probed into allegations against former Supreme Court judge V Ramasami.
He also assisted the Supreme Court in the 2002 Gujarat riots cases and his recent report suggested prima facie evidence against Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in the murder case of Congress MP Ehsan Jaffri.
Source: Published: Monday, Nov 28, 2011, 9:00 IST
By Rakesh Bhatnagar | Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_exclusive-saving-killer-ajmal-kasab_1618255
accessed on 29th November 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Hawking Poison Desperate US prisons look for lethal drugs from India. Should we market death?
Sodium Thiopental
* What Short-acting barbiturate used as an anaesthetic. First of a standard three-drug protocol used in the United States to execute prisoners sentenced to death. Lethal dose (up to 5 grams) used to render prisoner unconscious, after which a paralytic and a toxic agent injected in sequence.
* Why Shortage of sodium thiopental in the US after sole domestic supplier, shut production in 2009, citing lack of raw materials. Demand low, outside of prisons in the US.
* How Initially, US prisons able to import it from Britain, but ban imposed by Britain, other European countries, after human rights groups protest. Mainstream drug companies reluctant to supply. Therefore, some prisons are turning to India.
***
It all started with a mundane phonecall in August, received by the Noida office of a Swiss-Indian drug company called Naari. The caller, a Calcutta-based Indian businessman called Chris Harris, wanted samples of a drug called sodium thiopental to dispatch, he explained, to Zambia for registration by the country’s drug authorities. It was a perfectly plausible request. The drug, though largely replaced by better anaesthetics in the West, is still used widely in the developing world. Accordingly, Naari dipped into its stocks and sent vials containing 485 grams of sodium thiopental to Harris in Calcutta in end-September; and waited for the large order that he said would follow.
A few weeks later, the firm’s Indian officials were stunned when an investigator with the London-based charity, Reprieve, which campaigns against the death penalty, called to tell them where those samples had really gone. Not to Zambia, but the American state of Nebraska; not for medicinal use, but to execute convicts by the chosen American method, lethal injection (see infographic).
Surprise turned to outrage when they learnt from the investigator, Maya Foa, that Naari had even been named as the supplier of the drug in a press release issued by Nebraska’s Department of Correctional Services (NCDs) on November 3. “We’re not in the business of helping to execute people, we were lied to and cheated,” says a spokesman for the company. The prison paid $5,411 for the chemicals—over 15 times what Naari would have ordinarily charged Harris for them. But Harris hadn’t paid at all. By selling Naari’s free samples to Nebraska’s execution machinery, apparently desperate for drugs, the small-time middleman had made—yes—a killing.
Foa, who’s working with Naari on strategies to prevent the exported drugs being used in executions, says the episode, though shocking, is typical. “It is often the case that manufacturers and suppliers are drawn into this trade unwittingly and have no idea their drugs are going to execution chambers,” she says. That knowledge belongs to perfidious middlemen, key players in a macabre niche of global commerce ominously seeking to widen its footprint in India. High US standards for foreign drugs drop dramatically when it involves import of drugs for lethal injections.
Harris, for instance, has been in assiduous contact with American prison departments, as shown by documents obtained by campaigners through Freedom of Information Act applications. It was he who brokered transactions in which Nebraska and South Dakota bought sodium thiopental in December 2010 and February 2011 respectively from Kayem Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, which turned out to be a two-room outfit in a Mumbai suburb. (Eventually, US enforcement officials did not permit the use of those drugs, due to procedural violations in the import process.) Dipak Shangvi of Ganpati Exim, a Calcutta wholesaler and exporter of drugs, says he was in discussions with Harris a few months ago over supplying the drug to the US, but pulled out quickly when he realised—thanks to a Google search that led him to ask Harris some probing questions—that it was going to a prison. “We are Jains,” he said, by way of explanation.
The intriguing larger question is: why are state institutions in the mighty United States shopping at the murky end of the pharma trade? The answer is, they don’t have much choice. Drug companies, increasingly reluctant to be branded as suppliers of drugs for lethal injections, are distancing themselves from US prisons, which is no small achievement for hyperactive anti-capital punishment groups. When Hospira, the sole producer of sodium thiopental within the US, shut shop in 2009, for a variety of reasons, some US prisons initially managed to source the drug from Britain. (By now, it will not surprise readers to know it came from a company that operated out of the back of a driving school.) However, campaigners put an end to that trade by persuading several European governments to ban it. Many US prisons switched to a single drug called pentobarbital, commonly used to put down dogs, but campaigners won that round, too. In July this year, a Danish company, Lundbeck, the only licensed maker of the drug in the US, bowed to pressure (especially when it took the form of a major investor, a Danish pension fund, selling off a hefty € 5.4 million worth of its shares) and agreed to deny the drug to American execution chambers.
Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279072
accessed on 29th Nov 2011
* What Short-acting barbiturate used as an anaesthetic. First of a standard three-drug protocol used in the United States to execute prisoners sentenced to death. Lethal dose (up to 5 grams) used to render prisoner unconscious, after which a paralytic and a toxic agent injected in sequence.
* Why Shortage of sodium thiopental in the US after sole domestic supplier, shut production in 2009, citing lack of raw materials. Demand low, outside of prisons in the US.
* How Initially, US prisons able to import it from Britain, but ban imposed by Britain, other European countries, after human rights groups protest. Mainstream drug companies reluctant to supply. Therefore, some prisons are turning to India.
***
It all started with a mundane phonecall in August, received by the Noida office of a Swiss-Indian drug company called Naari. The caller, a Calcutta-based Indian businessman called Chris Harris, wanted samples of a drug called sodium thiopental to dispatch, he explained, to Zambia for registration by the country’s drug authorities. It was a perfectly plausible request. The drug, though largely replaced by better anaesthetics in the West, is still used widely in the developing world. Accordingly, Naari dipped into its stocks and sent vials containing 485 grams of sodium thiopental to Harris in Calcutta in end-September; and waited for the large order that he said would follow.
A few weeks later, the firm’s Indian officials were stunned when an investigator with the London-based charity, Reprieve, which campaigns against the death penalty, called to tell them where those samples had really gone. Not to Zambia, but the American state of Nebraska; not for medicinal use, but to execute convicts by the chosen American method, lethal injection (see infographic).
Surprise turned to outrage when they learnt from the investigator, Maya Foa, that Naari had even been named as the supplier of the drug in a press release issued by Nebraska’s Department of Correctional Services (NCDs) on November 3. “We’re not in the business of helping to execute people, we were lied to and cheated,” says a spokesman for the company. The prison paid $5,411 for the chemicals—over 15 times what Naari would have ordinarily charged Harris for them. But Harris hadn’t paid at all. By selling Naari’s free samples to Nebraska’s execution machinery, apparently desperate for drugs, the small-time middleman had made—yes—a killing.
Foa, who’s working with Naari on strategies to prevent the exported drugs being used in executions, says the episode, though shocking, is typical. “It is often the case that manufacturers and suppliers are drawn into this trade unwittingly and have no idea their drugs are going to execution chambers,” she says. That knowledge belongs to perfidious middlemen, key players in a macabre niche of global commerce ominously seeking to widen its footprint in India. High US standards for foreign drugs drop dramatically when it involves import of drugs for lethal injections.
Harris, for instance, has been in assiduous contact with American prison departments, as shown by documents obtained by campaigners through Freedom of Information Act applications. It was he who brokered transactions in which Nebraska and South Dakota bought sodium thiopental in December 2010 and February 2011 respectively from Kayem Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, which turned out to be a two-room outfit in a Mumbai suburb. (Eventually, US enforcement officials did not permit the use of those drugs, due to procedural violations in the import process.) Dipak Shangvi of Ganpati Exim, a Calcutta wholesaler and exporter of drugs, says he was in discussions with Harris a few months ago over supplying the drug to the US, but pulled out quickly when he realised—thanks to a Google search that led him to ask Harris some probing questions—that it was going to a prison. “We are Jains,” he said, by way of explanation.
The intriguing larger question is: why are state institutions in the mighty United States shopping at the murky end of the pharma trade? The answer is, they don’t have much choice. Drug companies, increasingly reluctant to be branded as suppliers of drugs for lethal injections, are distancing themselves from US prisons, which is no small achievement for hyperactive anti-capital punishment groups. When Hospira, the sole producer of sodium thiopental within the US, shut shop in 2009, for a variety of reasons, some US prisons initially managed to source the drug from Britain. (By now, it will not surprise readers to know it came from a company that operated out of the back of a driving school.) However, campaigners put an end to that trade by persuading several European governments to ban it. Many US prisons switched to a single drug called pentobarbital, commonly used to put down dogs, but campaigners won that round, too. In July this year, a Danish company, Lundbeck, the only licensed maker of the drug in the US, bowed to pressure (especially when it took the form of a major investor, a Danish pension fund, selling off a hefty € 5.4 million worth of its shares) and agreed to deny the drug to American execution chambers.
Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279072
accessed on 29th Nov 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Minor's death penalty set aside
Holding that he was a minor at the time of commission of offence, the Madurai bench of the Madras high court on Friday set aside the death sentence imposed on a convict for raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl. The girl was murdered in 2006 at Jaihindpuram, Madurai.
Allowing the appeal of the convict, the bench comprising Justice M Jaichandren and Justice S Nagamuthu pronounced the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under all charges as set aside.
The case has been remitted back to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, for disposal in accordance with provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, has been directed to dispose of the case within four months.
V Selvam of Anupanadi was arrested for rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl at her residence in Jaihindpuram. According to the police, he was working with a garland seller at Jaihindpuram. When his boss went away, the boy went to the house of the garland seller, beat up the girl, raped and murdered her. Later, he hid her body in a cardboard box meant for TV sets and fled, on October 26.
When the police went after him, he surrendered before the village administrative officer and confessed to have committed the crime. The accused was then handed over to the police.
Selvam is the sole accused in the case. He stood charged for offences under sections 450, 376(2)(f), 377, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment on August 1, 2008, the trial court convicted him under sections 450, 376(2)(f), 377, 302 and 201 of the IPC.
For offence under section 302 of the IPC, he has been given the death sentence subject to confirmation by the high court. He also got awards ranging from imprisonment of 10 years to a life sentence under the other provisions. In 2008, Selvam challenged the convictions before the Madurai bench.
It was contended that as on the date of alleged commission of offence, the accused was a juvenile in conflict with law since his date of birth was 01.06.1989. Therefore, it was submitted that he was entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and so the entire trial before the lower court, which treated the appellant as an adult, stood vitiated.
On considering the said ground and after hearing both sides, a division bench directed the trial court to hold an appropriate inquiry in respect of the age of the accused as on the date of occurrence of offence and submit a report.
Accordingly, the additional sessions judge (mahila court), Madurai, submitted a report on February 22, 2010, reporting that the accused was not a juvenile in conflict with law as he was about 21 years of age at the time of commission of offence.
Again, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the inquiry was not conducted by the sessions judge in accordance with law. It was submitted that even the school certificate of the accused showing his date of birth was not considered, and instead, the opinion of the doctor alone was taken into account.
After hearing both sides, the division bench, by order on July 29, 2010, scrapped the report of the sessions judge and remitted the matter back to the additional sessions judge, Madurai, with a direction to conduct an inquiry in respect of the age of the accused as on date of commission of offence, and to submit a fresh report within four weeks.
Having considered all the above material, the sessions judge concluded that as on the date of commission of offence, i.e. October 22, 2006, the accused was aged 17 years, four months and 21 days, and thus he was only a juvenile.
In view of the specific provisions contained in the act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in previous judgments, the Bench said, "We have no other option but to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under all charges and to remit the matter back to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, with a direction to the board to hold a necessary inquiry as per provisions of the act and dispose of the case in accordance with law, as the entire trial stands vitiated."
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-26/madurai/30444689_1_madurai-bench-mahila-court-convict
accessed on 28th Nov 2011
Allowing the appeal of the convict, the bench comprising Justice M Jaichandren and Justice S Nagamuthu pronounced the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under all charges as set aside.
The case has been remitted back to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, for disposal in accordance with provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, has been directed to dispose of the case within four months.
V Selvam of Anupanadi was arrested for rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl at her residence in Jaihindpuram. According to the police, he was working with a garland seller at Jaihindpuram. When his boss went away, the boy went to the house of the garland seller, beat up the girl, raped and murdered her. Later, he hid her body in a cardboard box meant for TV sets and fled, on October 26.
When the police went after him, he surrendered before the village administrative officer and confessed to have committed the crime. The accused was then handed over to the police.
Selvam is the sole accused in the case. He stood charged for offences under sections 450, 376(2)(f), 377, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment on August 1, 2008, the trial court convicted him under sections 450, 376(2)(f), 377, 302 and 201 of the IPC.
For offence under section 302 of the IPC, he has been given the death sentence subject to confirmation by the high court. He also got awards ranging from imprisonment of 10 years to a life sentence under the other provisions. In 2008, Selvam challenged the convictions before the Madurai bench.
It was contended that as on the date of alleged commission of offence, the accused was a juvenile in conflict with law since his date of birth was 01.06.1989. Therefore, it was submitted that he was entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and so the entire trial before the lower court, which treated the appellant as an adult, stood vitiated.
On considering the said ground and after hearing both sides, a division bench directed the trial court to hold an appropriate inquiry in respect of the age of the accused as on the date of occurrence of offence and submit a report.
Accordingly, the additional sessions judge (mahila court), Madurai, submitted a report on February 22, 2010, reporting that the accused was not a juvenile in conflict with law as he was about 21 years of age at the time of commission of offence.
Again, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the inquiry was not conducted by the sessions judge in accordance with law. It was submitted that even the school certificate of the accused showing his date of birth was not considered, and instead, the opinion of the doctor alone was taken into account.
After hearing both sides, the division bench, by order on July 29, 2010, scrapped the report of the sessions judge and remitted the matter back to the additional sessions judge, Madurai, with a direction to conduct an inquiry in respect of the age of the accused as on date of commission of offence, and to submit a fresh report within four weeks.
Having considered all the above material, the sessions judge concluded that as on the date of commission of offence, i.e. October 22, 2006, the accused was aged 17 years, four months and 21 days, and thus he was only a juvenile.
In view of the specific provisions contained in the act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in previous judgments, the Bench said, "We have no other option but to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under all charges and to remit the matter back to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, with a direction to the board to hold a necessary inquiry as per provisions of the act and dispose of the case in accordance with law, as the entire trial stands vitiated."
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-26/madurai/30444689_1_madurai-bench-mahila-court-convict
accessed on 28th Nov 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
A plea for Sarabjit
At an informal meeting between a group of Indians and Pakistanis in the Swiss village of Caux, the venue of the second forum of human security in July 2009, one suggestion put forward was for the governments in New Delhi and Islamabad to abolish capital punishment.
It was argued that it would help improve relations between the two neighbours. Yes it would, if this suggestion were to be taken seriously.
Given the number of prisoners from each country languishing in the jails of the other at any point in time and the fact that a number of them have been on death row for years makes this an issue worth taking up. The charge most frequently slapped on such prisoners is of indulging in acts of terrorism or ISI/RAW-inspired espionage. Invariably the fate of one man is tacitly interwoven with that of another.
This strategy results in a tit-for-tat game with the two sides retaliating to each other’s actions in similar fashion. If there is a man linked to India on death row in Pakistan, be assured there will be one awaiting a similar fate in India. Today, Mohammad Afzal Guru stands convicted in India for storming the Lok Sabha in December 2001. In Kot Lakhpat jail, Lahore, we have Sarabjit Singh arrested in 1990 and convicted of carrying out serial bomb blasts in Faisalabad, Kasur and Lahore.
Sarabjit’s case will be coming up in court shortly and there are many reasons why thousands in Pakistan, as well as India, feel that he should not be hanged.
Sarabjit was sentenced to death in 1991 by Lahore’s anti-terrorism court. He filed a petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed in 2005 on the grounds that it was time-barred. An appeal to review the petition was again dismissed in June 2009 when the government-appointed lawyer for the convict failed to appear before the court on two consecutive occasions when the case came up for hearing.
Now a new lawyer, Awais Shaikh, has been appointed and he is committed to fighting his client’s case. A fresh application has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of its earlier decision to dismiss Sarabjit Singh’s petition challenging his death penalty. A mercy petition is also being made to the president for clemency. The former Indian cricket captain, Kapil Dev, has collected 100,000 signatures calling for reprieve for Sarabjit and the same is being done on this side of the border.
Sheikh’s recent visit to India and the warm welcome he received there symbolises the popular sentiment in that country in favour of Sarabjit’s reprieve, as pointed out by the foreign minister.
Thus Sarabjit’s case has now acquired the dimension of an India-Pakistan issue which can be a factor in promoting amity among the people of the two countries. True, there are people lacking compassion who would argue in support of an eye for an eye and stern punishment for those who have ‘wronged’.
But the problem with capital punishment is that it is a frightfully ‘ultimate’ action that is irrevocable. Can one really be sure if the convict has really committed the deed? Whether a man is judged innocent or guilty depends on so many factors beyond his control. The interpretation of the law, the quality of legal assistance the defendant is provided, the efficiency or otherwise of the prosecution, even the political, international and social circumstances at the time the alleged crime was committed etc. All of these go into the making of a case for or against the person in the dock.
In Sarabjit’s case it is said to be based on conjectures and surmises. His name is disputed and is not even cited in the FIR. Given factors such as these, jurists now regard the death penalty to be an anachronistic punishment that has, to use Amnesty International’s words, “no place in a modern criminal justice system”. And the main question to be asked is, has capital punishment really deterred serious crime?
One doesn’t have to repeat all the arguments advanced by the opponents of capital punishment over the decades that have been so convincing that 133 governments have seen the wisdom of abolishing the death penalty. It is time others followed suit. In Pakistan’s case it is all the more difficult to condone what can be described as a lapse on the part of the government.
Last year, on the occasion of Benazir Bhutto’s birthday, Prime Minister Gilani had promised the National Assembly that all prisoners on death row in Pakistan would have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. This proposal was approved by the cabinet and reaffirmed by President Zardari when he took oath of office.
Why hasn’t this promise been fulfilled? Here is an opportunity for the government to show its commitment to two causes — that of human rights and that of peace in South Asia. The fact is that Sarabjit’s case has a direct bearing on India-Pakistan relations. The Indian government has been following the case closely, and has appealed a number of times to Islamabad to commute Sarabjit’s sentence to life imprisonment or grant him clemency.
Significantly, last year Sarabjit’s family members were granted visas to enable them to visit him in prison. It was then that he met his younger daughter for the first time. She was born after he had been arrested when, according to his family, he had strayed into Pakistani territory in a state of drunken stupor. His hanging was first put off for a month in April 2008 and then indefinitely.
The political implications of such cases, that also have strong humanitarian undertones, have not escaped public notice. Last year another Indian, allegedly a spy, Kashmir Singh, was released after 35 years in Pakistani prisons. Why not Sarabjit Singh who has already spent 18 years behind bars and was allowed consular access only four years ago?
(Source: By Zubeida Mustafa
Wednesday, 19 Aug, 2009 | 08:41 AM PST |
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-a-plea-for-sarabjit-hs-04
accessed on 19th August 2009)
It was argued that it would help improve relations between the two neighbours. Yes it would, if this suggestion were to be taken seriously.
Given the number of prisoners from each country languishing in the jails of the other at any point in time and the fact that a number of them have been on death row for years makes this an issue worth taking up. The charge most frequently slapped on such prisoners is of indulging in acts of terrorism or ISI/RAW-inspired espionage. Invariably the fate of one man is tacitly interwoven with that of another.
This strategy results in a tit-for-tat game with the two sides retaliating to each other’s actions in similar fashion. If there is a man linked to India on death row in Pakistan, be assured there will be one awaiting a similar fate in India. Today, Mohammad Afzal Guru stands convicted in India for storming the Lok Sabha in December 2001. In Kot Lakhpat jail, Lahore, we have Sarabjit Singh arrested in 1990 and convicted of carrying out serial bomb blasts in Faisalabad, Kasur and Lahore.
Sarabjit’s case will be coming up in court shortly and there are many reasons why thousands in Pakistan, as well as India, feel that he should not be hanged.
Sarabjit was sentenced to death in 1991 by Lahore’s anti-terrorism court. He filed a petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed in 2005 on the grounds that it was time-barred. An appeal to review the petition was again dismissed in June 2009 when the government-appointed lawyer for the convict failed to appear before the court on two consecutive occasions when the case came up for hearing.
Now a new lawyer, Awais Shaikh, has been appointed and he is committed to fighting his client’s case. A fresh application has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of its earlier decision to dismiss Sarabjit Singh’s petition challenging his death penalty. A mercy petition is also being made to the president for clemency. The former Indian cricket captain, Kapil Dev, has collected 100,000 signatures calling for reprieve for Sarabjit and the same is being done on this side of the border.
Sheikh’s recent visit to India and the warm welcome he received there symbolises the popular sentiment in that country in favour of Sarabjit’s reprieve, as pointed out by the foreign minister.
Thus Sarabjit’s case has now acquired the dimension of an India-Pakistan issue which can be a factor in promoting amity among the people of the two countries. True, there are people lacking compassion who would argue in support of an eye for an eye and stern punishment for those who have ‘wronged’.
But the problem with capital punishment is that it is a frightfully ‘ultimate’ action that is irrevocable. Can one really be sure if the convict has really committed the deed? Whether a man is judged innocent or guilty depends on so many factors beyond his control. The interpretation of the law, the quality of legal assistance the defendant is provided, the efficiency or otherwise of the prosecution, even the political, international and social circumstances at the time the alleged crime was committed etc. All of these go into the making of a case for or against the person in the dock.
In Sarabjit’s case it is said to be based on conjectures and surmises. His name is disputed and is not even cited in the FIR. Given factors such as these, jurists now regard the death penalty to be an anachronistic punishment that has, to use Amnesty International’s words, “no place in a modern criminal justice system”. And the main question to be asked is, has capital punishment really deterred serious crime?
One doesn’t have to repeat all the arguments advanced by the opponents of capital punishment over the decades that have been so convincing that 133 governments have seen the wisdom of abolishing the death penalty. It is time others followed suit. In Pakistan’s case it is all the more difficult to condone what can be described as a lapse on the part of the government.
Last year, on the occasion of Benazir Bhutto’s birthday, Prime Minister Gilani had promised the National Assembly that all prisoners on death row in Pakistan would have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. This proposal was approved by the cabinet and reaffirmed by President Zardari when he took oath of office.
Why hasn’t this promise been fulfilled? Here is an opportunity for the government to show its commitment to two causes — that of human rights and that of peace in South Asia. The fact is that Sarabjit’s case has a direct bearing on India-Pakistan relations. The Indian government has been following the case closely, and has appealed a number of times to Islamabad to commute Sarabjit’s sentence to life imprisonment or grant him clemency.
Significantly, last year Sarabjit’s family members were granted visas to enable them to visit him in prison. It was then that he met his younger daughter for the first time. She was born after he had been arrested when, according to his family, he had strayed into Pakistani territory in a state of drunken stupor. His hanging was first put off for a month in April 2008 and then indefinitely.
The political implications of such cases, that also have strong humanitarian undertones, have not escaped public notice. Last year another Indian, allegedly a spy, Kashmir Singh, was released after 35 years in Pakistani prisons. Why not Sarabjit Singh who has already spent 18 years behind bars and was allowed consular access only four years ago?
(Source: By Zubeida Mustafa
Wednesday, 19 Aug, 2009 | 08:41 AM PST |
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-a-plea-for-sarabjit-hs-04
accessed on 19th August 2009)
Friday, November 18, 2011
India 'honour killers' face death for 1991 murders
BBC News Asia:
16 November 2011 Last updated at 19:31 GMT
A judge in India has sentenced eight men to death and 20 others to life imprisonment for three so-called honour killings that took place in 1991.The men were found guilty of murdering a Dalit boy and a girl from a higher caste who had eloped together, as well as the boy's cousin. All three were set alight and hanged, the court in Uttar Pradesh state heard.
A BBC correspondent says the sentences are some of the most severe ever recorded in a such a case. Earlier this year India's Supreme Court ordered states to stamp out "honour killings, saying people found guilty of such crimes should face execution. Convictions in such cases often carry life sentences.
The death penalty is awarded only very rarely in India - when executions are authorised they can be delayed for years on appeal.
Genitals burned Age-old notions of tradition and family honour are still deeply entrenched in many parts of Indian society. According to one recent study, hundreds of people are killed each year for falling in love or marrying outside their caste or against their families' wishes. Often "honour" crimes are endorsed, or even encouraged, by village-based caste councils or panchayats.
The court in Mathura in Uttar Pradesh heard how Vijander, a Dalit boy, had eloped with his girlfriend, Roshni. She was a member of the higher-caste Jaat community and from the same village, Mehrana, near the border with Haryana state. The couple returned to Mehrana a few days later thinking anger would have subsided, the BBC's Ram Dutt Tripathi in Lucknow reports.
But village elders decreed they be killed, along with Vijander's cousin Ram Kishan, who had helped them elope. The killings took place on 22 March 1991 and were brutal - the court heard how the genitals of the deceased were burned before they were hanged from a tree.
The case came to light because the parents of the boys lodged a case against the council for ordering the killings, our correspondent says.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15759470
accessed on 18th Nov 2011
16 November 2011 Last updated at 19:31 GMT
A judge in India has sentenced eight men to death and 20 others to life imprisonment for three so-called honour killings that took place in 1991.The men were found guilty of murdering a Dalit boy and a girl from a higher caste who had eloped together, as well as the boy's cousin. All three were set alight and hanged, the court in Uttar Pradesh state heard.
A BBC correspondent says the sentences are some of the most severe ever recorded in a such a case. Earlier this year India's Supreme Court ordered states to stamp out "honour killings, saying people found guilty of such crimes should face execution. Convictions in such cases often carry life sentences.
The death penalty is awarded only very rarely in India - when executions are authorised they can be delayed for years on appeal.
Genitals burned Age-old notions of tradition and family honour are still deeply entrenched in many parts of Indian society. According to one recent study, hundreds of people are killed each year for falling in love or marrying outside their caste or against their families' wishes. Often "honour" crimes are endorsed, or even encouraged, by village-based caste councils or panchayats.
The court in Mathura in Uttar Pradesh heard how Vijander, a Dalit boy, had eloped with his girlfriend, Roshni. She was a member of the higher-caste Jaat community and from the same village, Mehrana, near the border with Haryana state. The couple returned to Mehrana a few days later thinking anger would have subsided, the BBC's Ram Dutt Tripathi in Lucknow reports.
But village elders decreed they be killed, along with Vijander's cousin Ram Kishan, who had helped them elope. The killings took place on 22 March 1991 and were brutal - the court heard how the genitals of the deceased were burned before they were hanged from a tree.
The case came to light because the parents of the boys lodged a case against the council for ordering the killings, our correspondent says.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15759470
accessed on 18th Nov 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Death penalty 'barbaric, anti-life': SC judge
PTI | Nov 15, 2011, 07.32PM IST
NEW DELHI: Justice AK Ganguly of the Supreme court has termed the award of death sentence as "barbaric, anti-life, undemocratic and irresponsible" which is "legal" in the prevailing judicial system.
Describing this as his "personal view", Justice Ganguly said the Constitutional guarantee of right to life cannot be subjected to "vague premises".
The doctrine of the crime falling in the'rarest of rare' category in awarding the death penalty was a "grey" area as its interpretation depended on individual judges, he said, adding the "sentencing structures" should be in consonance with the goals set by the Constitution.
The remarks were made by Justice Ganguly yesterday at a two-day seminar on 'Abolition of Death Penalty in India'. The seminar was organized by the Jindal Global Law School at Sonepat in Haryana.
The sitting judge of the apex court said sending a convict to the gallows, is legal but "barbaric, anti-life, undemocratic and irresponsible"..
The guilt of an accused should be proved beyond "lingering" doubt in cases warranting the award of capital punishment, which has so far not yet been evolved.
He cautioned that before giving death penalty, a judge must be "extremely careful" and weigh "mitigating and aggravating circumstances".
The Judge said the state must adduce evidence that the accused cannot be reformed.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Death-penalty-barbaric-anti-life-SC-judge/articleshow/10742277.cms
accessed on 15th Nov 2011
NEW DELHI: Justice AK Ganguly of the Supreme court has termed the award of death sentence as "barbaric, anti-life, undemocratic and irresponsible" which is "legal" in the prevailing judicial system.
Describing this as his "personal view", Justice Ganguly said the Constitutional guarantee of right to life cannot be subjected to "vague premises".
The doctrine of the crime falling in the'rarest of rare' category in awarding the death penalty was a "grey" area as its interpretation depended on individual judges, he said, adding the "sentencing structures" should be in consonance with the goals set by the Constitution.
The remarks were made by Justice Ganguly yesterday at a two-day seminar on 'Abolition of Death Penalty in India'. The seminar was organized by the Jindal Global Law School at Sonepat in Haryana.
The sitting judge of the apex court said sending a convict to the gallows, is legal but "barbaric, anti-life, undemocratic and irresponsible"..
The guilt of an accused should be proved beyond "lingering" doubt in cases warranting the award of capital punishment, which has so far not yet been evolved.
He cautioned that before giving death penalty, a judge must be "extremely careful" and weigh "mitigating and aggravating circumstances".
The Judge said the state must adduce evidence that the accused cannot be reformed.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Death-penalty-barbaric-anti-life-SC-judge/articleshow/10742277.cms
accessed on 15th Nov 2011
Lifting of death penalty sought
KOCHI, November 15, 2011
By Special Correspondent:
The Committee Against Death Penalty has urged the Union and State governments to order a moratorium on death penalty. To press its demand for a moratorium, the committee will hold a ‘people's convention' in Thiruvananthapuram on November 28.
Prominent people from various fields will speak at the convention, which would be opened by writer Paul Zachariah, K. Rajmohan, one of the organisers of the campaign, said. He pointed out that a large number of countries had done away with death penalty. He pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution seeking to revoke the death penalty of those sentenced in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination.
Resolution
There was a move in the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly to pass a resolution supporting the revocation of the death penalty given to Afzal Guru, who was sentenced in the Parliament House attack case. Mr. Rajmohan also recalled that nearly 70 years back, the then Travancore kingdom had abolished the death penalty.
Demand
Several human rights activists, criminologists and jurists the world over have been pressing for the abolition of death penalty. It was high time, he said, India dropped death penalty from its penal code. As a first step, the government should order a moratorium on death penalty and the Thiruvananthapuram convention would launch a strong campaign for this, Mr. Rajmohan said.
Committee urges governments to declare moratorium
To hold a people's convention in State capital
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2628697.ece
accessed on 15th Nov 2011
By Special Correspondent:
The Committee Against Death Penalty has urged the Union and State governments to order a moratorium on death penalty. To press its demand for a moratorium, the committee will hold a ‘people's convention' in Thiruvananthapuram on November 28.
Prominent people from various fields will speak at the convention, which would be opened by writer Paul Zachariah, K. Rajmohan, one of the organisers of the campaign, said. He pointed out that a large number of countries had done away with death penalty. He pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution seeking to revoke the death penalty of those sentenced in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination.
Resolution
There was a move in the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly to pass a resolution supporting the revocation of the death penalty given to Afzal Guru, who was sentenced in the Parliament House attack case. Mr. Rajmohan also recalled that nearly 70 years back, the then Travancore kingdom had abolished the death penalty.
Demand
Several human rights activists, criminologists and jurists the world over have been pressing for the abolition of death penalty. It was high time, he said, India dropped death penalty from its penal code. As a first step, the government should order a moratorium on death penalty and the Thiruvananthapuram convention would launch a strong campaign for this, Mr. Rajmohan said.
Committee urges governments to declare moratorium
To hold a people's convention in State capital
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2628697.ece
accessed on 15th Nov 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)