PTI | 09:12 PM,Dec 15,2011
Ranchi, Dec 15 (PTI) The Jharkhand High Court today acquitted all the four death row convicts in the Chilkari massacre case due to lack of evidence. The division bench of Justices R K Merathia and D N Upadhyay acquitted Chhatrapati Mandal, Manoj Rajwar, Jiten Marandi and Anil Ram in connection with the massacre that had claimed the lives of former Jharkhand Chief Minister Babulal Marandi's son Anup and 19 other villagers on October 26, 2007. The four moved the high court after the Additional District and Sessions Judge Giridih on June 23 sentenced them to death in the case. The police had filed an FIR against the four accusing them of being Maoists. Marandi's son Anup was among the 20 victims who had been gunned down by Maoists while watching a cultural programme at Chilkhari in Giridih district.
Source: http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/jharkhand-hc-acquits-chilkari-death-row-convicts/931762.html
accessed on 15th December 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Bombay High Court defers judgement on death sentence in 2003 blasts case
Updated: December 12, 2011 15:33 IST
Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/bombay-high-court-defers-judgement-on-death-sentence-in-2003-blasts-case-157295&cp
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has deferred its judgement on the death sentence awarded by a trial court to three accused in the twin blasts at Mumbai's Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar in 2003. The blasts, which took place within minutes of each other during the lunch hour, killed 52 people and injured 184.
The trial court had found the three, Ashrat Ansari (32), his aide Hanif Sayed Anees (46) and Hanif's wife Fehmida Sayed (43), guilty of planting powerful bombs in two taxis which exploded on August 25, 2003 at the two busy spots in the metropolis. They were convicted by the trial court in August 2009 under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), the Explosives Substances Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and were sentenced to death.
The accused had then appealed against their conviction and sentence in the High Court. Today's High Court order came from a Division Bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice P D Kode, which also heard the prosecution's arguments seeking confirmation of the death penalty.
The police had said that some Pakistani nationals owing allegiance to the terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) were behind the attack. The prosecution contended that the conspiracy was hatched in Dubai by Hanif and Ashrat along with another accused, Nasir, who was killed in a police encounter. Police said it was a unique instance of the LeT using members of a family to carry out a terror strike.
Bombay_2003_twin_blasts_accused_295.jpgAccording to the prosecution, on the day of the blasts, Hanif Sayed Anees - a former Mumbai auto-rickshaw driver who had gone to Dubai and returned only that year - and his wife Fehmida, arrived at the Gateway of India in a taxi that they had hired from Andheri station. There they allegedly left a bag filled with explosives in the cab and requested the driver to wait till they returned after having lunch. The taxi driver left the vehicle briefly, when the explosion occurred, the police said.
The police had also arrested the 16-year-old daughter of Hanif and Fehmida, who was present in the taxi, for allegedly aiding her parents. But she was later discharged from the case since she was a minor.
The driver of the taxi, Shivnarayan Vasudev Pandey, became a key witness in the case and identified the accused during the trial.
Ashrat Ansari was charged with planting the bomb which exploded in a taxi parked in Zaveri Bazar, the busy jewellery market. His modus operandi, the police said, was much the same. They said Ansari too left a bag containing explosives in the taxi and had asked the driver to wait.
The three were the first to be arrested in the case, less than a week after the twin blasts. Two more accused, Mohammed Ansari Ladoowala and Mohammed Hasan Batterywala, were arrested later and charged under POTA. Both were, however, discharged from the case in 2008 after the Supreme Court upheld a POTA review committee report that said that there was no case against them.
Another accused turned approver during the course of the trial and revealed the role that the LeT allegedly played in planning and executing the blasts. This accused was pardoned by the trial court after the prosecution requested that he be discharged from the case.
This was one of the few blasts cases in which the police managed to secure a conviction, the others being the 26/11 attack and the 1993 blasts. The motive, the police claimed, was to avenge attacks on Muslims during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat in 2002.
Source:http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/bombay-high-court-defers-judgement-on-death-sentence-in-2003-blasts-case-157295
accessed on December 13th 2011
Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/bombay-high-court-defers-judgement-on-death-sentence-in-2003-blasts-case-157295&cp
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has deferred its judgement on the death sentence awarded by a trial court to three accused in the twin blasts at Mumbai's Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar in 2003. The blasts, which took place within minutes of each other during the lunch hour, killed 52 people and injured 184.
The trial court had found the three, Ashrat Ansari (32), his aide Hanif Sayed Anees (46) and Hanif's wife Fehmida Sayed (43), guilty of planting powerful bombs in two taxis which exploded on August 25, 2003 at the two busy spots in the metropolis. They were convicted by the trial court in August 2009 under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), the Explosives Substances Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and were sentenced to death.
The accused had then appealed against their conviction and sentence in the High Court. Today's High Court order came from a Division Bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice P D Kode, which also heard the prosecution's arguments seeking confirmation of the death penalty.
The police had said that some Pakistani nationals owing allegiance to the terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) were behind the attack. The prosecution contended that the conspiracy was hatched in Dubai by Hanif and Ashrat along with another accused, Nasir, who was killed in a police encounter. Police said it was a unique instance of the LeT using members of a family to carry out a terror strike.
Bombay_2003_twin_blasts_accused_295.jpgAccording to the prosecution, on the day of the blasts, Hanif Sayed Anees - a former Mumbai auto-rickshaw driver who had gone to Dubai and returned only that year - and his wife Fehmida, arrived at the Gateway of India in a taxi that they had hired from Andheri station. There they allegedly left a bag filled with explosives in the cab and requested the driver to wait till they returned after having lunch. The taxi driver left the vehicle briefly, when the explosion occurred, the police said.
The police had also arrested the 16-year-old daughter of Hanif and Fehmida, who was present in the taxi, for allegedly aiding her parents. But she was later discharged from the case since she was a minor.
The driver of the taxi, Shivnarayan Vasudev Pandey, became a key witness in the case and identified the accused during the trial.
Ashrat Ansari was charged with planting the bomb which exploded in a taxi parked in Zaveri Bazar, the busy jewellery market. His modus operandi, the police said, was much the same. They said Ansari too left a bag containing explosives in the taxi and had asked the driver to wait.
The three were the first to be arrested in the case, less than a week after the twin blasts. Two more accused, Mohammed Ansari Ladoowala and Mohammed Hasan Batterywala, were arrested later and charged under POTA. Both were, however, discharged from the case in 2008 after the Supreme Court upheld a POTA review committee report that said that there was no case against them.
Another accused turned approver during the course of the trial and revealed the role that the LeT allegedly played in planning and executing the blasts. This accused was pardoned by the trial court after the prosecution requested that he be discharged from the case.
This was one of the few blasts cases in which the police managed to secure a conviction, the others being the 26/11 attack and the 1993 blasts. The motive, the police claimed, was to avenge attacks on Muslims during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat in 2002.
Source:http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/bombay-high-court-defers-judgement-on-death-sentence-in-2003-blasts-case-157295
accessed on December 13th 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Press Conference - 9.12.2011 at 3.30pm at Press Club Mumbai
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (9 December 2011):
Press conference: US execution chambers want Indian drugs to kill their prisoners. Legal NGO Reprieve warns of the risks.
Maya Foa, representing the UK legal NGO Reprieve, has come to India urgently to warn pharmaceutical companies of deceptive practices being used to implicate them in lethal injections in America.
Domestic shortages of execution drugs mean the US is now seeking supplies abroad. Sodium thiopental is not used for medical purposes in the US, and the last remaining American manufacturer of the drug pulled out of the market in January. US prisons are now looking to foreign manufacturers to provide drugs to fuel their execution chambers.
It’s a purely exploitative move on the part of the American executing states: the US has everything to gain and the Indian manufacturer everything to lose. The drugs are very cheap so there is no financial profit to be made. Each execution takes just 5 grams, costing no more than 175 rupees, with only perhaps 40 executions a year: the entire market is worth no more than 7,000 rupees, or $130 per annum. This is the reason no US company makes the drug – it is off patent and no longer worthwhile. Meanwhile, the cost to a company’s reputation – not to mention the cost of human lives – is unthinkably high.
The US first went to Europe. The negative publicity to one company, Dream Pharma, caused it great commercial loss. Another company implicated in what came to be seen as the “death drug” scandal, Lundbeck, saw its corporate image plummet fifty percent in a week, provoking divestment by some of its shareholders.
Llast month, Indian manufacturer, Naari, became the latest victim of the US execution drug scramble. Acting on behalf of the executing states, an Indian purchaser, Chris Harris, represented that Naari’s drugs were going to Zambia for medical use; instead, Harris diverted them to Nebraska prison for use in executions. Naari is committed to providing drugs which improve the health and lives of patients all over the world; they are ‘horrified’ that the US wants to use their drugs to end lives instead and have initiated legal action in Nebraska to force the return of their drugs.
The deception practiced on Naari not only threatens the good name of a respected company, but also undermines efforts to ensure that medicines reach countries where they are urgently needed to save lives, such as in Africa.
Reprieve is meeting with government officials, pharmaceutical companies, lawyers and human rights organisations in India to find ways to prevent the Indian pharmaceutical market from being forced to collaborate in executions in the US against their will.
WHO: Maya Foa, Reprieve; Vijay Hiremath, Centre for Access to Rights
WHAT: Press conference on the use of Indian drugs in US executions
WHERE: Mumbai Press Club
WHEN: 15:30, Friday 9 December
For further information please contact Maya Foa (maya.foa@reprieve.org.uk).
Press conference: US execution chambers want Indian drugs to kill their prisoners. Legal NGO Reprieve warns of the risks.
Maya Foa, representing the UK legal NGO Reprieve, has come to India urgently to warn pharmaceutical companies of deceptive practices being used to implicate them in lethal injections in America.
Domestic shortages of execution drugs mean the US is now seeking supplies abroad. Sodium thiopental is not used for medical purposes in the US, and the last remaining American manufacturer of the drug pulled out of the market in January. US prisons are now looking to foreign manufacturers to provide drugs to fuel their execution chambers.
It’s a purely exploitative move on the part of the American executing states: the US has everything to gain and the Indian manufacturer everything to lose. The drugs are very cheap so there is no financial profit to be made. Each execution takes just 5 grams, costing no more than 175 rupees, with only perhaps 40 executions a year: the entire market is worth no more than 7,000 rupees, or $130 per annum. This is the reason no US company makes the drug – it is off patent and no longer worthwhile. Meanwhile, the cost to a company’s reputation – not to mention the cost of human lives – is unthinkably high.
The US first went to Europe. The negative publicity to one company, Dream Pharma, caused it great commercial loss. Another company implicated in what came to be seen as the “death drug” scandal, Lundbeck, saw its corporate image plummet fifty percent in a week, provoking divestment by some of its shareholders.
Llast month, Indian manufacturer, Naari, became the latest victim of the US execution drug scramble. Acting on behalf of the executing states, an Indian purchaser, Chris Harris, represented that Naari’s drugs were going to Zambia for medical use; instead, Harris diverted them to Nebraska prison for use in executions. Naari is committed to providing drugs which improve the health and lives of patients all over the world; they are ‘horrified’ that the US wants to use their drugs to end lives instead and have initiated legal action in Nebraska to force the return of their drugs.
The deception practiced on Naari not only threatens the good name of a respected company, but also undermines efforts to ensure that medicines reach countries where they are urgently needed to save lives, such as in Africa.
Reprieve is meeting with government officials, pharmaceutical companies, lawyers and human rights organisations in India to find ways to prevent the Indian pharmaceutical market from being forced to collaborate in executions in the US against their will.
WHO: Maya Foa, Reprieve; Vijay Hiremath, Centre for Access to Rights
WHAT: Press conference on the use of Indian drugs in US executions
WHERE: Mumbai Press Club
WHEN: 15:30, Friday 9 December
For further information please contact Maya Foa (maya.foa@reprieve.org.uk).
Friday, December 2, 2011
Petition in high court against death penalty
TNN Nov 30, 2011, 11.06PM IST
KOCHI: A lawyer based at Kochi approached the Kerala high court on Wednesday with a petition challenging death penalty.
The petition, filed by advocate Manju Antoney, seeks amendment of section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with punishment for offenders, including death penalty. Death penalty is against the noble principles laid out in the Constitution and most of the countries have abolished this law, the petitioner says.
As of February 2011, 95 countries have abolished death penalty, while eight countries are allowing death sentence in special circumstances. However, death penalty has not been implemented in the last 10 years in 49 countries, the petition says.
The petitioner also highlighted a non-binding resolution by the United Nations in 2007 that called for a moratorium on execution with a view to abolishing death penalty. Many courts in India are awarding death sentences despite these circumstances, and therefore, an amendment is needed, he says.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice P R Ramamchandra Menon heard the petitioner but said the petition was incomplete to be accepted as a public interest litigation in the present form.
Observing that the amendment should be made at higher platforms, the court asked the petitioner to monitor the proceedings in Parliament related to death penalty as well as study other public interest litigations on the same matter and file an amended petition after four weeks.
source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-30/kochi/30459237_1_death-penalty-petition-division-bench
accessed on 2nd December 2011
KOCHI: A lawyer based at Kochi approached the Kerala high court on Wednesday with a petition challenging death penalty.
The petition, filed by advocate Manju Antoney, seeks amendment of section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with punishment for offenders, including death penalty. Death penalty is against the noble principles laid out in the Constitution and most of the countries have abolished this law, the petitioner says.
As of February 2011, 95 countries have abolished death penalty, while eight countries are allowing death sentence in special circumstances. However, death penalty has not been implemented in the last 10 years in 49 countries, the petition says.
The petitioner also highlighted a non-binding resolution by the United Nations in 2007 that called for a moratorium on execution with a view to abolishing death penalty. Many courts in India are awarding death sentences despite these circumstances, and therefore, an amendment is needed, he says.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice P R Ramamchandra Menon heard the petitioner but said the petition was incomplete to be accepted as a public interest litigation in the present form.
Observing that the amendment should be made at higher platforms, the court asked the petitioner to monitor the proceedings in Parliament related to death penalty as well as study other public interest litigations on the same matter and file an amended petition after four weeks.
source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-30/kochi/30459237_1_death-penalty-petition-division-bench
accessed on 2nd December 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Capital punishment is primitive: Zacharia
The Hindu:
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, November 29, 2011
Special correspondent:
Writer Paul Zacharia has said that it is high time India abolished capital punishment as it is founded on the primitive and fallacious belief that a crime can be undone by killing a person.
Inaugurating a convention seeking a moratorium on capital punishment, organised by the Committee Against Capital Punishment, here on Monday, Mr. Zacharia said the media's celebration of the capital punishment awarded to Govindachamy in the Soumya murder case was born out of the innate human craving for war and gore and the social consensus of the current times on the need to meet crime with crime. The recent murder of a youth by a moral vigilante group was the result of this mindset. Television channels were particularly adept at feeding this war hysteria. This was in evidence immediately after the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks when some media organisations even called for an immediate war with Pakistan.
What actually played out in Govindachamy's case was hatred for a foreigner, the craving for bloodshed and upper caste sense of honour. The reaction would not have been so celebratory had the accused belonged to any of the major communities in Kerala, he said. The writer pointed out that in India capital punishment was also a political weapon and said that no judge would have been able to award anything less than capital punishment in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The clamour for hanging the accused in the Parliament attack case was another case in point, he added.
Chairing the convention, journalist B.R.P. Bhaskar said that Kerala had changed so much over the last 25 years that a person suspected of pick-pocketing could be beaten to death and nobody found anything wrong in capital punishment which was nothing but judicial murder. The people of Kerala must ask themselves how things came to such a pass. Equally important was to raise the question what role the media played in preparing the Malayali mind to accept murders in society and those ordered by the judiciary without any sense of guilt. The media should introspect on this and society at last should start worrying about this if the State were to become a better place to live, Mr. Bhaskar said.
On the occasion, academic N.A. Kareem said capital punishment derived its legitimacy from the legal guarantees to protect life and also to take life. As important as capital punishment was extra judicial killings as was evident in the killing of Maoist leaders Azad and Kishenji, both of whom were enticed into the police dragnet under the guise of negotiations. Such killings showed that the State could not be trusted with the power to take a person in the name of the law. The quality of the judiciary also raised serious questions about the wisdom of persisting with capital punishment, Dr. Kareem said.
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2670071.ece
accessed on 1st December 2011
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, November 29, 2011
Special correspondent:
Writer Paul Zacharia has said that it is high time India abolished capital punishment as it is founded on the primitive and fallacious belief that a crime can be undone by killing a person.
Inaugurating a convention seeking a moratorium on capital punishment, organised by the Committee Against Capital Punishment, here on Monday, Mr. Zacharia said the media's celebration of the capital punishment awarded to Govindachamy in the Soumya murder case was born out of the innate human craving for war and gore and the social consensus of the current times on the need to meet crime with crime. The recent murder of a youth by a moral vigilante group was the result of this mindset. Television channels were particularly adept at feeding this war hysteria. This was in evidence immediately after the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks when some media organisations even called for an immediate war with Pakistan.
What actually played out in Govindachamy's case was hatred for a foreigner, the craving for bloodshed and upper caste sense of honour. The reaction would not have been so celebratory had the accused belonged to any of the major communities in Kerala, he said. The writer pointed out that in India capital punishment was also a political weapon and said that no judge would have been able to award anything less than capital punishment in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The clamour for hanging the accused in the Parliament attack case was another case in point, he added.
Chairing the convention, journalist B.R.P. Bhaskar said that Kerala had changed so much over the last 25 years that a person suspected of pick-pocketing could be beaten to death and nobody found anything wrong in capital punishment which was nothing but judicial murder. The people of Kerala must ask themselves how things came to such a pass. Equally important was to raise the question what role the media played in preparing the Malayali mind to accept murders in society and those ordered by the judiciary without any sense of guilt. The media should introspect on this and society at last should start worrying about this if the State were to become a better place to live, Mr. Bhaskar said.
On the occasion, academic N.A. Kareem said capital punishment derived its legitimacy from the legal guarantees to protect life and also to take life. As important as capital punishment was extra judicial killings as was evident in the killing of Maoist leaders Azad and Kishenji, both of whom were enticed into the police dragnet under the guise of negotiations. Such killings showed that the State could not be trusted with the power to take a person in the name of the law. The quality of the judiciary also raised serious questions about the wisdom of persisting with capital punishment, Dr. Kareem said.
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2670071.ece
accessed on 1st December 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Exclusive! Saving killer Ajmal Kasab
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
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
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
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Death penalty awarded in female infanticide case
10 Nov 2011, 08:43 - Chandigarh , Lalit Kumar
A Sangrur Court Wednesday ordered one Mukesh Kumar to be hanged to death in a case of murder of his four-day-old daughter. This award of capital punishment is perhaps the first-of-its-kind in a case of female infanticide.
Sangrur District and Sessions Judge MS Chauhan in his order noted "Five million girls were eliminated between 1986 and 2001 because of foetal sex determination done by unethical medical professionals."
In this case the victim was a new-born girl child. The judge noted that, "the accused, it seems, had scripted her obituary much before she was born. This is the story of an unnamed infant; probably this is the first decision which cannot even refer to the victim by her name. She was eliminated before she could have one!.. A smile was lost forever. The moral regression of the people of India has not been crippled by the penal laws. The policy of persuasion has failed".
The prosecution had argued that the accused intentionally caused the death of his daughter three days after her birth. The judge stated that the only punishment that can be awarded to the convict is the extreme penalty of death.
Source: http://www.lawetalnews.com/post.php?id=144
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
A Sangrur Court Wednesday ordered one Mukesh Kumar to be hanged to death in a case of murder of his four-day-old daughter. This award of capital punishment is perhaps the first-of-its-kind in a case of female infanticide.
Sangrur District and Sessions Judge MS Chauhan in his order noted "Five million girls were eliminated between 1986 and 2001 because of foetal sex determination done by unethical medical professionals."
In this case the victim was a new-born girl child. The judge noted that, "the accused, it seems, had scripted her obituary much before she was born. This is the story of an unnamed infant; probably this is the first decision which cannot even refer to the victim by her name. She was eliminated before she could have one!.. A smile was lost forever. The moral regression of the people of India has not been crippled by the penal laws. The policy of persuasion has failed".
The prosecution had argued that the accused intentionally caused the death of his daughter three days after her birth. The judge stated that the only punishment that can be awarded to the convict is the extreme penalty of death.
Source: http://www.lawetalnews.com/post.php?id=144
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Chavan plans death penalty plea for killers
Comment (Reena Mary George): How can the State already decide how they want the trial to go? Does it not depend on rule of law? Does it not depend on how the prosecution files their case? Does it not depend how well the defense lawyers argue their case? My heart goes out to the families of the victims and the ones who have committed this crime must be punished; but only according to the rule of law. There is no scope for "Eye for an eye" in the Indian Judiciary though it seems to work that way these days.
Sunday, 06 November 2011 00:55 IST PNS | Mumbai
Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan on Saturday said his Government would root for death penalty to the killers of Keenan Santos (25) and Reuben Fernandes (27), who died while resisting eve-teasing of their girlfriends.
Earlier, veteran BJP leader LK Advani spoke to Keenan's father Valerian Santos over phone, expressed his shock over the incident and conveyed condolences to the bereaved family members.
Advani, who was in the city as part of the ongoing Jan Chetna Yatra, took time out to telephone Santos. He assured Santos that he would take up the matter with the Maharashtra CM and seek stringent punishment to the accused in the incident.
Meanwhile, the four accused in the murder case - Jitendra Rane (25), Satish Dulhaj (35), Sunil Bodh (20) and Deepak Tival (18) — have been remanded to judicial custody by a city court till November 18.
Chavan said, "The incident is absolutely reprehensible. We have taken very strict action. All the four persons involved in the incident have been arrested. We have requested for fast track trial of the four accused. We will demand death penalty for the accused in the heinous crime." He conveyed his condolences to the bereaved families.
Keenan and Reuben were badly assaulted by a group of eve-teasers when they had gone to enjoy the India-England ODI at a restaurant in Andheri on October 20.
Source: http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/18319-chavan-plans-death-penalty-plea-for-killers.html
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Sunday, 06 November 2011 00:55 IST PNS | Mumbai
Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan on Saturday said his Government would root for death penalty to the killers of Keenan Santos (25) and Reuben Fernandes (27), who died while resisting eve-teasing of their girlfriends.
Earlier, veteran BJP leader LK Advani spoke to Keenan's father Valerian Santos over phone, expressed his shock over the incident and conveyed condolences to the bereaved family members.
Advani, who was in the city as part of the ongoing Jan Chetna Yatra, took time out to telephone Santos. He assured Santos that he would take up the matter with the Maharashtra CM and seek stringent punishment to the accused in the incident.
Meanwhile, the four accused in the murder case - Jitendra Rane (25), Satish Dulhaj (35), Sunil Bodh (20) and Deepak Tival (18) — have been remanded to judicial custody by a city court till November 18.
Chavan said, "The incident is absolutely reprehensible. We have taken very strict action. All the four persons involved in the incident have been arrested. We have requested for fast track trial of the four accused. We will demand death penalty for the accused in the heinous crime." He conveyed his condolences to the bereaved families.
Keenan and Reuben were badly assaulted by a group of eve-teasers when they had gone to enjoy the India-England ODI at a restaurant in Andheri on October 20.
Source: http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/18319-chavan-plans-death-penalty-plea-for-killers.html
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Hindu leader suggests death penalty for conversion
A prominent Hindu nationalist leader has called for the beheading of anyone who attempts to convert Hindus to another religion.
Praveen Togadia, suggested the death penalty for religious conversions at a Hind conference, adding that the execution should be by decapitation. Father Cedric Prakash, the Jesuit director of a human-rights center, observed that such intolerance is not unusual in India today. “What Togadia has said is nothing new,” he told the AsiaNews service. He observed, however, that the Hindu zealot’s suggestion is thoroughly at odds with India’s traditional commitment to inter-religious harmony.
Source: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12309
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Praveen Togadia, suggested the death penalty for religious conversions at a Hind conference, adding that the execution should be by decapitation. Father Cedric Prakash, the Jesuit director of a human-rights center, observed that such intolerance is not unusual in India today. “What Togadia has said is nothing new,” he told the AsiaNews service. He observed, however, that the Hindu zealot’s suggestion is thoroughly at odds with India’s traditional commitment to inter-religious harmony.
Source: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12309
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Binayak backs jailed artiste
The telegraph, Calcutta, India
Ranchi, Nov. 12: Human rights activist Binayak Sen today came out in open support of Jeetan Marandi who has been found guilty for the 2007 Chikari massacre, terming the death sentence to the tribal artiste “unlawful”.
Addressing a national convention organised by Jan Kalakar Jeetan Marandi Manch — a local body of artistes — at SDC Auditorium, Sen said, “An artiste and tribal rights activist, Jeetan was known to utilise the power of music to speak against government atrocities on the common man, especially tribals.”
“Therefore, it doesn’t surprise me that he has been wrongfully convicted and is now set to be hanged. However, we will fight till his last breath to reverse the court’s decision,” he added.
On June 23, a sessions court judge in Giridih had served death sentence to Jeetan and his associates, Manoj Rajwar, Chatrapati Mandal and Anil Ram, for firing on a crowd watching a football match and killing 20 people, including Babulal Marandi’s son Anup, in Chilkari in 2007.
As many as 200 activists assembled for the daylong convention in Ranchi.
“Artistes world over have used their medium of music, song, painting, etc. to portray the wrongs of society. Jeetan was fighting against displacement, corporate and political loot among other ills. It is ironic of the state government that in the land of Birsa Munda, it has been staying mum on his case,” added Sen.
Actor-director R. Narayana Murty said the film fraternity and cultural activists of Hyderabad were united to fight for Jeetan. “We will be soon come to Ranchi in large numbers from the south. We have decided to launch an indefinite strike here demanding justice for Jeetan and his family,” he said.
The activists also demanded the high court’s intervention to bail out Jeetan. The apex court should call a fair trial to book the real culprits behind the Chilkari massacre, they added.
Sen also said that the basis on which the case was made against Jeetan was an “open secret”. He added: “The police kept on changing its version from time to time and ended up presenting false witnesses. None of the witnesses belonged to any of the victims’ families till date. It is a clear indication how the authorities have deliberately formed false charges against the cultural activists.”
Source: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111113/jsp/jharkhand/story_14741944.jsp
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Ranchi, Nov. 12: Human rights activist Binayak Sen today came out in open support of Jeetan Marandi who has been found guilty for the 2007 Chikari massacre, terming the death sentence to the tribal artiste “unlawful”.
Addressing a national convention organised by Jan Kalakar Jeetan Marandi Manch — a local body of artistes — at SDC Auditorium, Sen said, “An artiste and tribal rights activist, Jeetan was known to utilise the power of music to speak against government atrocities on the common man, especially tribals.”
“Therefore, it doesn’t surprise me that he has been wrongfully convicted and is now set to be hanged. However, we will fight till his last breath to reverse the court’s decision,” he added.
On June 23, a sessions court judge in Giridih had served death sentence to Jeetan and his associates, Manoj Rajwar, Chatrapati Mandal and Anil Ram, for firing on a crowd watching a football match and killing 20 people, including Babulal Marandi’s son Anup, in Chilkari in 2007.
As many as 200 activists assembled for the daylong convention in Ranchi.
“Artistes world over have used their medium of music, song, painting, etc. to portray the wrongs of society. Jeetan was fighting against displacement, corporate and political loot among other ills. It is ironic of the state government that in the land of Birsa Munda, it has been staying mum on his case,” added Sen.
Actor-director R. Narayana Murty said the film fraternity and cultural activists of Hyderabad were united to fight for Jeetan. “We will be soon come to Ranchi in large numbers from the south. We have decided to launch an indefinite strike here demanding justice for Jeetan and his family,” he said.
The activists also demanded the high court’s intervention to bail out Jeetan. The apex court should call a fair trial to book the real culprits behind the Chilkari massacre, they added.
Sen also said that the basis on which the case was made against Jeetan was an “open secret”. He added: “The police kept on changing its version from time to time and ended up presenting false witnesses. None of the witnesses belonged to any of the victims’ families till date. It is a clear indication how the authorities have deliberately formed false charges against the cultural activists.”
Source: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111113/jsp/jharkhand/story_14741944.jsp
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Arguments in 2003 twin blast case end, verdict on Dec 12
Press Trust Of India
Mumbai, November 12, 2011
Arguments on confirmation of death sentence awarded to three convicts in the 2003 Mumbai twin bomb blast case concluded on Saturday before the Bombay high court.
Division bench of justices AM Khanvilkar and PD Kode would deliver the verdict on December 12, said advocate Sushan(t) Kunjuraman, defence lawyer. The bench held a special hearing today to hear the final arguments.
Ashrat Ansari (32), Hanif Sayed Anees (46) and his wife Fehmida Sayed (43) were held guilty on charges of planting powerful bombs in two taxis which exploded at Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar respectively on August 25, 2003, killing 52 persons.
The conspiracy had been hatched by Hanif, Ashrat, Nasir (who was later killed in a police encounter) and some Pakistani nationals owing allegiance to LeT in Dubai, as per the prosecution case.
The trio, who belonged to LeT, have also been found guilty by a POTA court for a blast in a municipal bus in suburban Ghatkopar on July 28, 2003, in which two people were killed.
In the present case, the three were convicted under various Sections of IPC, POTA, Explosive Substances Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
According to police, LeT used a family (husband-wife) to carry out blasts for the first time in this case. The motive, investigators said, was to seek vengeance for the violence against the minority community during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat in 2002.
As the convicts were given death sentence by trial court, the matter was sent to the Bombay High Court for confirmation, as required under the law.
Mumbai, November 12, 2011
Arguments on confirmation of death sentence awarded to three convicts in the 2003 Mumbai twin bomb blast case concluded on Saturday before the Bombay high court.
Division bench of justices AM Khanvilkar and PD Kode would deliver the verdict on December 12, said advocate Sushan(t) Kunjuraman, defence lawyer. The bench held a special hearing today to hear the final arguments.
Ashrat Ansari (32), Hanif Sayed Anees (46) and his wife Fehmida Sayed (43) were held guilty on charges of planting powerful bombs in two taxis which exploded at Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar respectively on August 25, 2003, killing 52 persons.
The conspiracy had been hatched by Hanif, Ashrat, Nasir (who was later killed in a police encounter) and some Pakistani nationals owing allegiance to LeT in Dubai, as per the prosecution case.
The trio, who belonged to LeT, have also been found guilty by a POTA court for a blast in a municipal bus in suburban Ghatkopar on July 28, 2003, in which two people were killed.
In the present case, the three were convicted under various Sections of IPC, POTA, Explosive Substances Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
According to police, LeT used a family (husband-wife) to carry out blasts for the first time in this case. The motive, investigators said, was to seek vengeance for the violence against the minority community during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat in 2002.
As the convicts were given death sentence by trial court, the matter was sent to the Bombay High Court for confirmation, as required under the law.
Man sentenced to death for killing daughter
Press Trust Of India
Sangrur, November 10, 2011
A court in Sangrur has awarded death sentence to a man for the murder of his new-born female baby. In a 97-page judgment, Sessions Judge of Sangrur M S Chauhan said "it is seen that the aggravating circumstances out-weigh the extenuating circumstances and as such the only punishment that
can be awarded to convict (Mukesh Kumar) is extreme penalty of death".
"The society needs to be insulated against persons of the ilk of the convict", the court said.
Kumar was also a awarded fine of Rs 10,000 in the judgment pronounced on Wednesday.
According to the prosecution, the accused, a street vendor, was married about five years ago to Manju Devi, both hailing from Uttar Pradesh's Aligarh district. The couple were residing at Ajit Nagar in Sangrur in a rented accommodation.
On January 18 this year, Manju gave birth to her second female child, that annoyed her husband. He started taunting her for giving birth a female child instead of a male child.
On January 21, when Manju returned home from some work, she found her husband gagging the baby. The accused went outside stating that the baby was sleeping.
When the mother saw the kid, she found her dead.
She narrated the incident to her neighbours and some relatives. A neighbour had informed the matter to police.
Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Punjab/Man-sentenced-to-death-for-killing-daughter/Article1-767413.aspx
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Sangrur, November 10, 2011
A court in Sangrur has awarded death sentence to a man for the murder of his new-born female baby. In a 97-page judgment, Sessions Judge of Sangrur M S Chauhan said "it is seen that the aggravating circumstances out-weigh the extenuating circumstances and as such the only punishment that
can be awarded to convict (Mukesh Kumar) is extreme penalty of death".
"The society needs to be insulated against persons of the ilk of the convict", the court said.
Kumar was also a awarded fine of Rs 10,000 in the judgment pronounced on Wednesday.
According to the prosecution, the accused, a street vendor, was married about five years ago to Manju Devi, both hailing from Uttar Pradesh's Aligarh district. The couple were residing at Ajit Nagar in Sangrur in a rented accommodation.
On January 18 this year, Manju gave birth to her second female child, that annoyed her husband. He started taunting her for giving birth a female child instead of a male child.
On January 21, when Manju returned home from some work, she found her husband gagging the baby. The accused went outside stating that the baby was sleeping.
When the mother saw the kid, she found her dead.
She narrated the incident to her neighbours and some relatives. A neighbour had informed the matter to police.
Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Punjab/Man-sentenced-to-death-for-killing-daughter/Article1-767413.aspx
accessed on 13th Nov 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Soumya murder case: Convict gets death sentence
Thrissur: A Thrissur fast track court awarded capital punishment to the Soumya rape and murder case accused Govindachami. On Monday, it had found the accused Govindachami guilty.
Soumya was raped in a compartment of Kochi-Shornur passenger train and was pushed out of the moving train in February this year. Special Prosecutor A Suresan had pleaded for the maximum punishment of death.
According to the prosecution, Govindachami hailing from Virudhachalam in Tamil Nadu had assaulted 23-year-old Soumya in a deserted ladies' compartment on February 1 this year and pushed her out of the running train, immediately after it left the Vallathol Nagar station. He then carried her to a spot along the rail tracks and raped her 'cruelly and brutally'.
The accused had also injured her seriously resulting in her death on February 6.
Pressing for maximum punishment, the prosecution submitted that the accused was a 'habitual offender' and produced documentary evidence from the Tamil Nadu Crime Bureau of Police that he had been convicted in eight cases in Tamil Nadu from 2004 to 2008.
(With additional information from PTI)
Source : ibnlive.com
Soumya was raped in a compartment of Kochi-Shornur passenger train and was pushed out of the moving train in February this year. Special Prosecutor A Suresan had pleaded for the maximum punishment of death.
According to the prosecution, Govindachami hailing from Virudhachalam in Tamil Nadu had assaulted 23-year-old Soumya in a deserted ladies' compartment on February 1 this year and pushed her out of the running train, immediately after it left the Vallathol Nagar station. He then carried her to a spot along the rail tracks and raped her 'cruelly and brutally'.
The accused had also injured her seriously resulting in her death on February 6.
Pressing for maximum punishment, the prosecution submitted that the accused was a 'habitual offender' and produced documentary evidence from the Tamil Nadu Crime Bureau of Police that he had been convicted in eight cases in Tamil Nadu from 2004 to 2008.
(With additional information from PTI)
Source : ibnlive.com
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Rajiv killers join Bhullar to question rejection of mercy pleas
NEW DELHI: The three condemned prisoners in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case joined Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, sentenced to death in the 1993 Delhi bomb blast case, in arguing before the Supreme Court that pendency of their mercy pleas for over decade with the President was a good ground for commutation of their capital sentence to life term.
Though the three - Santhan, Arivu and Periarvalan - have moved the Madras High Court against the President's decision to reject their mercy pleas and have secured a stay on their execution, their counsel Ram Jethmalani on Wednesday requested the apex court to permit him to argue in Bhullar's pending case as its outcome would affect the HC decision.
A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked Bhullar's counsel K T S Tulsi and additional solicitor general Harin Raval whether they had any objection to Jethmalani arguing in this case and permitted the intervention when both the counsel said they did not have any problem.
The rejection of mercy pleas of Bhullar and the three in Rajiv assassination case has seen unprecedented political activity. While Tamil Nadu assembly passed a resolution requesting commutation of death penalty for the three condemned prisoners, there has been considerable support from the Sikh community for commutation of Bhullar's death penalty to life imprisonment.
Tulsi argued that the government was acting arbitrarily in deciding mercy pleas and cited recently obtained RTI information revealing that in some cases, the mercy pleas were decided the day it was made before the governors and in some cases in two months. "Here is a person who was made to wait on death row for 11 years and reduced to a mental wreck," Tulsi said.
Bhullar, an alleged Khalistan Liberation Force terrorist, was sentenced to death for masterminding the car bomb attack on then Youth Congress president Maninderjit Singh Bitta which left 9 persons dead just a stone's throw away from Parliament on September 10, 1993. The death sentence awarded to Bhullar attained judicial finality when on March 12, 2003, the apex court dismissed his curative petition. Bhullar had filed a mercy plea before the President on January 14, 2003.
Bhullar's wife Navneet Kaur has also filed a petition challenging rejection of mercy plea and said, "My husband has become mentally retarded on account of more than 5,700 days of delay in deciding the mercy petition which has inflicted such inhuman penalty and torture in his mind that he has become mentally retarded."
In response to Bhullar's petition, the Centre in its counter-affidavit said long pendency of mercy pleas of condemned prisoners, some for over a decade, was no ground for altering the decision taken on it by the President in exercise of her constitutional powers.
It said the Constitution prescribed no time frame for the President to decide mercy peas of condemned prisoners and that courts had no power to prescribe a deadline on this issue. "Pendency of the mercy petition cannot be said to be an act of cruelty or an act which adds to the suffering of the prisoner. In fact, it is the pendency of the mercy petition which has given a lease of life to the prisoner," the Centre had said.
Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rajiv-killers-join-Bhullar-to-question-rejection-of-mercy-pleas/articleshow/10674054.cms
Date : 10.11.2011
Though the three - Santhan, Arivu and Periarvalan - have moved the Madras High Court against the President's decision to reject their mercy pleas and have secured a stay on their execution, their counsel Ram Jethmalani on Wednesday requested the apex court to permit him to argue in Bhullar's pending case as its outcome would affect the HC decision.
A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked Bhullar's counsel K T S Tulsi and additional solicitor general Harin Raval whether they had any objection to Jethmalani arguing in this case and permitted the intervention when both the counsel said they did not have any problem.
The rejection of mercy pleas of Bhullar and the three in Rajiv assassination case has seen unprecedented political activity. While Tamil Nadu assembly passed a resolution requesting commutation of death penalty for the three condemned prisoners, there has been considerable support from the Sikh community for commutation of Bhullar's death penalty to life imprisonment.
Tulsi argued that the government was acting arbitrarily in deciding mercy pleas and cited recently obtained RTI information revealing that in some cases, the mercy pleas were decided the day it was made before the governors and in some cases in two months. "Here is a person who was made to wait on death row for 11 years and reduced to a mental wreck," Tulsi said.
Bhullar, an alleged Khalistan Liberation Force terrorist, was sentenced to death for masterminding the car bomb attack on then Youth Congress president Maninderjit Singh Bitta which left 9 persons dead just a stone's throw away from Parliament on September 10, 1993. The death sentence awarded to Bhullar attained judicial finality when on March 12, 2003, the apex court dismissed his curative petition. Bhullar had filed a mercy plea before the President on January 14, 2003.
Bhullar's wife Navneet Kaur has also filed a petition challenging rejection of mercy plea and said, "My husband has become mentally retarded on account of more than 5,700 days of delay in deciding the mercy petition which has inflicted such inhuman penalty and torture in his mind that he has become mentally retarded."
In response to Bhullar's petition, the Centre in its counter-affidavit said long pendency of mercy pleas of condemned prisoners, some for over a decade, was no ground for altering the decision taken on it by the President in exercise of her constitutional powers.
It said the Constitution prescribed no time frame for the President to decide mercy peas of condemned prisoners and that courts had no power to prescribe a deadline on this issue. "Pendency of the mercy petition cannot be said to be an act of cruelty or an act which adds to the suffering of the prisoner. In fact, it is the pendency of the mercy petition which has given a lease of life to the prisoner," the Centre had said.
Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rajiv-killers-join-Bhullar-to-question-rejection-of-mercy-pleas/articleshow/10674054.cms
Date : 10.11.2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
No time cap for mercy petitions, says Centre
CHENNAI: The power of the President of India to decide on mercy petitions under Article 72 of the Constitution is discretionary and cannot be taken away by any statutory provision and cannot be altered, modified or interfered with in any manner by any statutory provision or authority, the Union Home Secretary (Judicial) said on Friday in his common counter affidavits filed in response to the three writ petitions from Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan, convicted of killing former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi.
Nullifying the trio’s main contention that there was inordinate delay of over 11 years in disposing of their mercy petitions, the counter said the exercise of the power under this Article was not curtailed by any limitation as to the time frame within which such power conferred might be exercised. It was a special power overriding all other laws, rules and regulations in force. No time frame could be stipulated or set up for the President in this regard. Delay by itself did not entail the persons under sentence of death to demand for quashing of the sentence or converting it into life imprisonment. So, there could be no fixed period within which any mercy petition ought to be disposed of. The contention that if the mercy petition was not disposed of within a fixed period, it would render the sentence of death inexecutable, was untenable. The court, in exercise of power under Article 226 or Article 32, could not prescribe a time limit for disposal of the mercy petition. The citations of the Supreme Court judgments by the petitioners would not apply in this case, the counters said.
Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan had lived a normal life in prison like any other prisoner and were given opportunities to develop their skills. They were allowed to pursue their studies as well as other literary and cultural activities in the prison. So, it was fanciful to contend that they suffered mental torture, which caused violation of their fundamental rights, the counters said.
The behaviour of the trio in the prison, even if good, could not take away the reality that they had committed an extremely gruesome, heinous, cold-blooded and cruel crime. It was a well-planned and predetermined brutal murder with the active connivance and help of the petitioners by the terrorist organisation LTTE, which caused the death of, besides the former PM, 15 other innocent persons. The petitioners deserved the extreme penalty of death and nothing short of it. Giving deterrent punishment alone could prevent potential offenders from committing such crimes, the counters reiterated.
Just because some eminent personalities, social organisations, political parties, MPs, MLAs, former judges and jurists had written to the State government or to the President of India, it could not be considered to be a valid ground to commute the death sentence, the counter reiterated. Bowing to their demand would set a bad precedent and in the future it was likely to create and be a cause for communal and religious protests and unrest. Some persons/politicians demanded the commutation for political mileage. Public support could not be a benchmark or scale to measure, it said.
The decision of the President was not arbitrary and was not based on extraneous considerations. Justice had to be done not only to the convicts but also to the victims, the counters said.
Source: Tamil Nadu | Updated Oct 30, 2011 at 11:01am IST
Express News Service , The New Indian Express
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-time-cap-for-mercy-petitions-says-centre/197241-60-118.html accessed on 8th Nov 2011
Nullifying the trio’s main contention that there was inordinate delay of over 11 years in disposing of their mercy petitions, the counter said the exercise of the power under this Article was not curtailed by any limitation as to the time frame within which such power conferred might be exercised. It was a special power overriding all other laws, rules and regulations in force. No time frame could be stipulated or set up for the President in this regard. Delay by itself did not entail the persons under sentence of death to demand for quashing of the sentence or converting it into life imprisonment. So, there could be no fixed period within which any mercy petition ought to be disposed of. The contention that if the mercy petition was not disposed of within a fixed period, it would render the sentence of death inexecutable, was untenable. The court, in exercise of power under Article 226 or Article 32, could not prescribe a time limit for disposal of the mercy petition. The citations of the Supreme Court judgments by the petitioners would not apply in this case, the counters said.
Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan had lived a normal life in prison like any other prisoner and were given opportunities to develop their skills. They were allowed to pursue their studies as well as other literary and cultural activities in the prison. So, it was fanciful to contend that they suffered mental torture, which caused violation of their fundamental rights, the counters said.
The behaviour of the trio in the prison, even if good, could not take away the reality that they had committed an extremely gruesome, heinous, cold-blooded and cruel crime. It was a well-planned and predetermined brutal murder with the active connivance and help of the petitioners by the terrorist organisation LTTE, which caused the death of, besides the former PM, 15 other innocent persons. The petitioners deserved the extreme penalty of death and nothing short of it. Giving deterrent punishment alone could prevent potential offenders from committing such crimes, the counters reiterated.
Just because some eminent personalities, social organisations, political parties, MPs, MLAs, former judges and jurists had written to the State government or to the President of India, it could not be considered to be a valid ground to commute the death sentence, the counter reiterated. Bowing to their demand would set a bad precedent and in the future it was likely to create and be a cause for communal and religious protests and unrest. Some persons/politicians demanded the commutation for political mileage. Public support could not be a benchmark or scale to measure, it said.
The decision of the President was not arbitrary and was not based on extraneous considerations. Justice had to be done not only to the convicts but also to the victims, the counters said.
Source: Tamil Nadu | Updated Oct 30, 2011 at 11:01am IST
Express News Service , The New Indian Express
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/no-time-cap-for-mercy-petitions-says-centre/197241-60-118.html accessed on 8th Nov 2011
Assemblies cannot seek clemency for death-row convicts: Achary
The former Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha, P.D.T. Achary, has warned that the recent resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly seeking the President to commute the death sentence of three of Rajiv Gandhi's killers and a similar attempt made by the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in favour of Parliament attack case convict Afzal Guru might result in “unintended consequences.”
Mr. Achary told The Hindu on Thursday that neither the State government has constitutionally-sanctioned powers in this regard nor can the Assembly perform that role.
“In other words, the Legislative Assembly of a State has no power to request the President to consider a mercy petition in a particular way,” he pointed out.
Commenting on the powers of the State legislatures to pass such resolutions seeking mercy for the convicts even after the President has rejected them, Mr. Achary said: “Passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking Presidential pardon for someone who did an act of terrorism is tantamount to saying ‘He is our terrorist, therefore, please spare him.' This message goes across the world.”
The steps taken by the two Assemblies had caused considerable consternation in the Parliamentary and political circles and raised serious constitutional and political questions.
Under the Constitutional scheme, State Legislatures had been given exclusive legislative powers in respect of items in the State List. They could also legislate on matters in the Concurrent List, except in a case of repugnancy where the law made by Parliament on that subject would prevail.
Jurisdiction
As per rules, a State Legislature could consider a matter through a resolution only if it was within the State's jurisdiction.
Through a resolution a Legislative House calls the attention of the State government to a matter or situation for consideration by that government. Constitutionally speaking, the government could consider the same only if the matter concerns it.
“It seems that there is a certain amount of confusion in the minds of the Assembly Speakers on the competence of State Legislatures to consider such resolutions. Unlike in the U.S., where the residuary powers vest in the States, in India the Constitution vests the residuary powers in Parliament only. So the State Legislature cannot deal with a matter which is outside the area assigned to it by the Constitution.”
“But by no stretch of imagination can we think that the State governments have the jurisdiction to consider the resolutions brought before these two Assemblies seeking Presidential clemency for the convicts and can act on them. In respect of mercy petitions, the President acts on the advice of his or her Council of Ministers. So, what is the role of a State government in this matter? Nothing,” Mr. Achary asserted.
Whatever be the political compulsions, a legislative body is required to function within the framework of constitutional rules and passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking Presidential clemency for a convict is an unprecedented act.
Pointing out that there was an irresistible temptation among the Indian political class to succumb to such pressures, he observed: “Rule of law is what steers the ship of democratic institutions out of the turgid waters of sectarian pressures.”
A precedent, once set, was followed by others in future. Generally, the presiding officers of the legislatures took great amount of care while dealing with issues of constitutional significance, Mr. Achary added.
Source: The Hindu
NEW DELHI, October 27, 2011
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2574161.ece accessed on 8th November 2011
Mr. Achary told The Hindu on Thursday that neither the State government has constitutionally-sanctioned powers in this regard nor can the Assembly perform that role.
“In other words, the Legislative Assembly of a State has no power to request the President to consider a mercy petition in a particular way,” he pointed out.
Commenting on the powers of the State legislatures to pass such resolutions seeking mercy for the convicts even after the President has rejected them, Mr. Achary said: “Passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking Presidential pardon for someone who did an act of terrorism is tantamount to saying ‘He is our terrorist, therefore, please spare him.' This message goes across the world.”
The steps taken by the two Assemblies had caused considerable consternation in the Parliamentary and political circles and raised serious constitutional and political questions.
Under the Constitutional scheme, State Legislatures had been given exclusive legislative powers in respect of items in the State List. They could also legislate on matters in the Concurrent List, except in a case of repugnancy where the law made by Parliament on that subject would prevail.
Jurisdiction
As per rules, a State Legislature could consider a matter through a resolution only if it was within the State's jurisdiction.
Through a resolution a Legislative House calls the attention of the State government to a matter or situation for consideration by that government. Constitutionally speaking, the government could consider the same only if the matter concerns it.
“It seems that there is a certain amount of confusion in the minds of the Assembly Speakers on the competence of State Legislatures to consider such resolutions. Unlike in the U.S., where the residuary powers vest in the States, in India the Constitution vests the residuary powers in Parliament only. So the State Legislature cannot deal with a matter which is outside the area assigned to it by the Constitution.”
“But by no stretch of imagination can we think that the State governments have the jurisdiction to consider the resolutions brought before these two Assemblies seeking Presidential clemency for the convicts and can act on them. In respect of mercy petitions, the President acts on the advice of his or her Council of Ministers. So, what is the role of a State government in this matter? Nothing,” Mr. Achary asserted.
Whatever be the political compulsions, a legislative body is required to function within the framework of constitutional rules and passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking Presidential clemency for a convict is an unprecedented act.
Pointing out that there was an irresistible temptation among the Indian political class to succumb to such pressures, he observed: “Rule of law is what steers the ship of democratic institutions out of the turgid waters of sectarian pressures.”
A precedent, once set, was followed by others in future. Generally, the presiding officers of the legislatures took great amount of care while dealing with issues of constitutional significance, Mr. Achary added.
Source: The Hindu
NEW DELHI, October 27, 2011
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2574161.ece accessed on 8th November 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Death sentence is judicial murder, says judge in Rajiv killing
K.T. Thomas the ex-Supreme Court Judge of India who wrote the judgement in the Rajiv Gandhi Murder case has said to India today that 'death sentence is judicial murder'. Though the statement is welcome from a ex-supreme court judge of India, it is surprising that why did he agree to award death sentence along with the other judges in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case. The question remains whether Justice K.T. Thomas had a similar belief regarding death sentence while he was still a supreme court judge or it changed after he retired as a judge. If he had a similar belief about death sentence then he should have made it clear in his judgements and if it has changed in the recent past after his retirement the people of this country deserve to know what made him change his mind on death sentence.
Below is the article which appeared on the website of India Today.
The above comment is authored by Vijay Hiremath
________________________________________________________________________________
Death sentence is judicial murder, says former Supreme Court judge K.T. Thomas, who headed the bench that pronounced death punishment to three conspirators in Rajiv Gandhi's assassination.
"Death sentence is no punishment," Thomas, 74, said. "It is a judicial murder committed with the protection of the society."
According to Thomas, world opinion is turning against the death penalty with more and more countries abolishing it.
"In India too the debate is active among rights activists, judicial circles and civil society," Thomas said. "But ultimately, it is a political decision."
If he was against the death sentence, why did he agree to awarding death penalty to the three Rajiv killers -- Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan?
"Because I took oath to discharge my duties as per the Constitution and the prevailing laws," replied the former judge. "Whatever extreme may be my individual views, as a judge, I had to function as per the existing laws."
He said punishment had a three-fold objective: reformation, deterrence and retribution. The rule of retribution -- a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye -- is increasingly considered uncivilised.
"Then is the case of reformation. If a person is eliminated where is the opportunity for reformation?" he said.
Experience and studies have proved that death punishment have not worked for deterrence too, Thomas said.
He recalled the experience of erstwhile princely states of Cochin and Travancore where death penalty was abolished in 1940 but restored when they became part of the Indian republic in 1950.
Records show that there were a higher number of murders in the 1950s than in the 1940s when there was no capital punishment. "So the theory of deterrence is not valid in many places and periods", he said.
He said the simple test for death sentence was visualising our own children in the situation. "Our children commit mistakes and we want to reform them through punishments. But do we want to kill them?"
In 1999, the three-member supreme court bench comprising Thomas, Justice D.P. Wadwah and Justice S.S.M .Quadri had awarded death punishment to Murugan, Santhan, Perarivalan and Murugan's wife Nalini in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
Thomas had dissented on death punishment to Nalini while the other two judges were for capital punishment for all four.
Nalini's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment as President Pratibha Patil accepted her mercy petition. The petition was recommended by Rajiv's widow and Congress president Sonia Gandhi.
"I found Nalini was acting like a robot and did not know till the last hour that she was to kill Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu on 21st May, 1991." Thomas said.
If both Murugan and Nalini were to be killed their child would have been an "orphan made by law", he added.
With the President rejecting the mercy petition of the trio, they were to be hanged September 8 this year. However, the Madras High Court September 1 stayed their execution for eight weeks. The Supreme Court will hear a plea to transfer the petition on October 19 .
"It was my misfortune to have presided over the bench which gave the death penalty to the four accused. But I had to discharge my duties," Thomas said about the 1999 verdict.
"The debate over the suitability and ethics of the death sentence is picking up in India," he said. The Supreme Court had deliberated the issue during the Bachan Singh case in 1983 and directed that death penalty should be awarded only in the 'rarest of the rare cases', he recalled.
Thomas, a practising Christian, had courted controversy recently when he said at a function in Kochi that the "smear campaign" that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was responsible for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was "baseless". RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat was also present at the function.
An alumnus of the C.M.S. College, Kottayam, he has often criticized Christian educational institutions "indulging in commercial practises" and has suggested that minorities should give up the special rights given by the Constitution.
Source : http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/rajiv-gandhi-killing-death-sentence-judicial-murder/1/155142.html
Below is the article which appeared on the website of India Today.
The above comment is authored by Vijay Hiremath
________________________________________________________________________________
Death sentence is judicial murder, says former Supreme Court judge K.T. Thomas, who headed the bench that pronounced death punishment to three conspirators in Rajiv Gandhi's assassination.
"Death sentence is no punishment," Thomas, 74, said. "It is a judicial murder committed with the protection of the society."
According to Thomas, world opinion is turning against the death penalty with more and more countries abolishing it.
"In India too the debate is active among rights activists, judicial circles and civil society," Thomas said. "But ultimately, it is a political decision."
If he was against the death sentence, why did he agree to awarding death penalty to the three Rajiv killers -- Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan?
"Because I took oath to discharge my duties as per the Constitution and the prevailing laws," replied the former judge. "Whatever extreme may be my individual views, as a judge, I had to function as per the existing laws."
He said punishment had a three-fold objective: reformation, deterrence and retribution. The rule of retribution -- a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye -- is increasingly considered uncivilised.
"Then is the case of reformation. If a person is eliminated where is the opportunity for reformation?" he said.
Experience and studies have proved that death punishment have not worked for deterrence too, Thomas said.
He recalled the experience of erstwhile princely states of Cochin and Travancore where death penalty was abolished in 1940 but restored when they became part of the Indian republic in 1950.
Records show that there were a higher number of murders in the 1950s than in the 1940s when there was no capital punishment. "So the theory of deterrence is not valid in many places and periods", he said.
He said the simple test for death sentence was visualising our own children in the situation. "Our children commit mistakes and we want to reform them through punishments. But do we want to kill them?"
In 1999, the three-member supreme court bench comprising Thomas, Justice D.P. Wadwah and Justice S.S.M .Quadri had awarded death punishment to Murugan, Santhan, Perarivalan and Murugan's wife Nalini in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
Thomas had dissented on death punishment to Nalini while the other two judges were for capital punishment for all four.
Nalini's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment as President Pratibha Patil accepted her mercy petition. The petition was recommended by Rajiv's widow and Congress president Sonia Gandhi.
"I found Nalini was acting like a robot and did not know till the last hour that she was to kill Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu on 21st May, 1991." Thomas said.
If both Murugan and Nalini were to be killed their child would have been an "orphan made by law", he added.
With the President rejecting the mercy petition of the trio, they were to be hanged September 8 this year. However, the Madras High Court September 1 stayed their execution for eight weeks. The Supreme Court will hear a plea to transfer the petition on October 19 .
"It was my misfortune to have presided over the bench which gave the death penalty to the four accused. But I had to discharge my duties," Thomas said about the 1999 verdict.
"The debate over the suitability and ethics of the death sentence is picking up in India," he said. The Supreme Court had deliberated the issue during the Bachan Singh case in 1983 and directed that death penalty should be awarded only in the 'rarest of the rare cases', he recalled.
Thomas, a practising Christian, had courted controversy recently when he said at a function in Kochi that the "smear campaign" that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was responsible for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was "baseless". RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat was also present at the function.
An alumnus of the C.M.S. College, Kottayam, he has often criticized Christian educational institutions "indulging in commercial practises" and has suggested that minorities should give up the special rights given by the Constitution.
Source : http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/rajiv-gandhi-killing-death-sentence-judicial-murder/1/155142.html
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
US wanted Kasab's lawyer to build case for his freedom: WikiLeaks
Aman Sharma New Delhi, October 14, 2011 | UPDATED 10:15 IST
Lending a touch of irony, 26/ 11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab has approached the Supreme Court in appeal against his death sentence. But the plea he has made there, has been dismissed by his attorney S. G. Abbas Kazmi two years ago before the trial court pronounced its verdict.
Kasab has pleaded in the apex court that he was "brainwashed like a robot" into committing the dastardly act "in the name of god" and, "given my young age", had a chance to reform.
But a secret American diplomatic cable exposed by WikiLeaks shows that Kazmi had discounted exploring this avenue when the US had mentioned these very arguments to him in the trial court: if he would contact Kasab's parents in Pakistan to build up the case for mitigating circumstances which may help the convict escape the noose.
An official of the US embassy had met Kazmi on September 3, 2009, asking him if India would contact Kasab's parents in Pakistan to know the circumstances under which he was indoctrinated by the Lashkar e-Tayyeba (LeT) and whether he had been brainwashed. But Kazmi had dismissed the possibility of such a move, saying there were no funds to bring Kasab's parents to India and they would not get a visa.
"The death penalty is authorised in India only in rarest of the rare cases, Kazmi said, where there has been extreme brutality or inhuman treatment. The Indian law allows consideration of mitigating factors, such as whether Kasab had been brainwashed, but Kazmi is not planning on calling witnesses to testify on behalf of Kasab to explain the circumstances that led him to be indoctrinated by the LeT," the cable stated.
Kazmi ruled out calling anyone from Pakistan to testify on his behalf in the mitigation phase of the trial. Kazmi said: "I am an Indian citizen. I am not going to contact anyone in Pakistan." Even if he wanted to, there were no funds to bring such a witness to Mumbai, nor was it likely (that) the person would get a visa, he surmised. Further, he noted that no one from Kasab's family had contacted him, the cable added. Kasab's parents, Amir Shahban Kasab and Noor Illah, live in Faridkot village of Okara district. His family has rarely spoken up except when his father confirmed to Pakistani TV channels after 26/ 11 that Kasab was his son.
The US cable stated that even Kasab's defence lawyer was certain that the trial court would award him the death sentence.
"Kazmi said that given the overwhelming evidence against Kasab, he expected Kasab to be convicted and sentenced to death. Kasab's and Kazmi's fatalistic acceptance of the ultimate outcome of the trial appears to be shared by the public at large," the cable added.
Kazmi also complained to the US official that his attempts to provide Kasab with a "robust defence and fair trial" had been hampered from the beginning, the cable stated. "Kazmi is not permitted to confer with his client in private to prepare the defence.
Source: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/wikileaks-ajmal-kasab-us-26-11-mumbai-terrorist-attacks/1/154812.html
Accessed 14th October 2011
Lending a touch of irony, 26/ 11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab has approached the Supreme Court in appeal against his death sentence. But the plea he has made there, has been dismissed by his attorney S. G. Abbas Kazmi two years ago before the trial court pronounced its verdict.
Kasab has pleaded in the apex court that he was "brainwashed like a robot" into committing the dastardly act "in the name of god" and, "given my young age", had a chance to reform.
But a secret American diplomatic cable exposed by WikiLeaks shows that Kazmi had discounted exploring this avenue when the US had mentioned these very arguments to him in the trial court: if he would contact Kasab's parents in Pakistan to build up the case for mitigating circumstances which may help the convict escape the noose.
An official of the US embassy had met Kazmi on September 3, 2009, asking him if India would contact Kasab's parents in Pakistan to know the circumstances under which he was indoctrinated by the Lashkar e-Tayyeba (LeT) and whether he had been brainwashed. But Kazmi had dismissed the possibility of such a move, saying there were no funds to bring Kasab's parents to India and they would not get a visa.
"The death penalty is authorised in India only in rarest of the rare cases, Kazmi said, where there has been extreme brutality or inhuman treatment. The Indian law allows consideration of mitigating factors, such as whether Kasab had been brainwashed, but Kazmi is not planning on calling witnesses to testify on behalf of Kasab to explain the circumstances that led him to be indoctrinated by the LeT," the cable stated.
Kazmi ruled out calling anyone from Pakistan to testify on his behalf in the mitigation phase of the trial. Kazmi said: "I am an Indian citizen. I am not going to contact anyone in Pakistan." Even if he wanted to, there were no funds to bring such a witness to Mumbai, nor was it likely (that) the person would get a visa, he surmised. Further, he noted that no one from Kasab's family had contacted him, the cable added. Kasab's parents, Amir Shahban Kasab and Noor Illah, live in Faridkot village of Okara district. His family has rarely spoken up except when his father confirmed to Pakistani TV channels after 26/ 11 that Kasab was his son.
The US cable stated that even Kasab's defence lawyer was certain that the trial court would award him the death sentence.
"Kazmi said that given the overwhelming evidence against Kasab, he expected Kasab to be convicted and sentenced to death. Kasab's and Kazmi's fatalistic acceptance of the ultimate outcome of the trial appears to be shared by the public at large," the cable added.
Kazmi also complained to the US official that his attempts to provide Kasab with a "robust defence and fair trial" had been hampered from the beginning, the cable stated. "Kazmi is not permitted to confer with his client in private to prepare the defence.
Source: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/wikileaks-ajmal-kasab-us-26-11-mumbai-terrorist-attacks/1/154812.html
Accessed 14th October 2011
8 Indian prisoners on hunger strike in Lahore jail, seek early release
AMRITSAR: Perturbed over the unusual delay in their release, eight Indian prisoners have gone on fast in Kot Lakhpat jail, Lahore, Pakistan, demanding their immediate release.
Talking to TOI over phone from Lahore on Thursday, counsel for Indian death sentence awardees Sarabjit Singh (also lodged in Kot Lakhpat jail), Awais Sheikh said that Khakhi Hussain, Satinder Pal, Surjit Singh, Ram Rai, Waryam Khan, Om Parkash, Musallim Deenand and Nazir Hussani, all Indian nationals, have been sitting on a fast since October 5.
"Their jail sentences came to an end long ago but are yet to be released," he said. The jail authorities were yet to receive the identification papers of these prisoners from Indian high commission before they could start the repatriation process, he said, adding that he had visited the jail to meet the prisoners sitting on hunger strike.
He said he had sent the papers of agitating prisoners to Indian high commission for necessary action. "I have received identification papers of three prisoners while those of others were yet to be received" he said.
Awais suggested that Indian high commission should expedite the completion of identity verification process which includes verification by concerned police station in India where the prisoner had been living.
Meanwhile, Dalbir Kaur, sister of Sarabjit Singh, said that Kot Lakhpat jail authorities had banned meeting of any outsider or jail inmate with Sarabjit ever since her return from Pakistan on July 5. "Only once, Awais Sheikh had met him, who informed that Sarabjit had gone under depression," she said.
The Pakistan high court had also turned down the request of Awais Sheikh to teach yoga to his client in jail so that he could overcome depression and other physical ailments.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/8-Indian-prisoners-on-hunger-strike-in-Lahore-jail-seek-early-release/articleshow/10348597.cms
accessed on 14th October 2011
Yudhvir RanaYudhvir Rana, TNN | Oct 14, 2011, 06.21AM IST
Talking to TOI over phone from Lahore on Thursday, counsel for Indian death sentence awardees Sarabjit Singh (also lodged in Kot Lakhpat jail), Awais Sheikh said that Khakhi Hussain, Satinder Pal, Surjit Singh, Ram Rai, Waryam Khan, Om Parkash, Musallim Deenand and Nazir Hussani, all Indian nationals, have been sitting on a fast since October 5.
"Their jail sentences came to an end long ago but are yet to be released," he said. The jail authorities were yet to receive the identification papers of these prisoners from Indian high commission before they could start the repatriation process, he said, adding that he had visited the jail to meet the prisoners sitting on hunger strike.
He said he had sent the papers of agitating prisoners to Indian high commission for necessary action. "I have received identification papers of three prisoners while those of others were yet to be received" he said.
Awais suggested that Indian high commission should expedite the completion of identity verification process which includes verification by concerned police station in India where the prisoner had been living.
Meanwhile, Dalbir Kaur, sister of Sarabjit Singh, said that Kot Lakhpat jail authorities had banned meeting of any outsider or jail inmate with Sarabjit ever since her return from Pakistan on July 5. "Only once, Awais Sheikh had met him, who informed that Sarabjit had gone under depression," she said.
The Pakistan high court had also turned down the request of Awais Sheikh to teach yoga to his client in jail so that he could overcome depression and other physical ailments.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/8-Indian-prisoners-on-hunger-strike-in-Lahore-jail-seek-early-release/articleshow/10348597.cms
accessed on 14th October 2011
Yudhvir RanaYudhvir Rana, TNN | Oct 14, 2011, 06.21AM IST
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Bombay High Court to conduct 2003 blasts trial via video-conference
The Bombay High Court has become tech-savvy.
After the hearings on the confirmation of the death sentence for Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Kasab were conducted through video-conference — a first-of-its-kind arrangement made in the court to hear proceedings for security reasons, the HC will now conduct the death confirmation proceedings of the 2003 Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar blasts accused the same way.
A huge screen has been put up inside court room no 13, where Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice P D Kode are presently hearing confirmation proceedings.
Officials involved in the setting up of the video link between the Arthur Road prison and the court said, “The link is being tested and will soon become operational. The court will conduct the proceedings through it.”
The reason for the shift is the huge cost being incurred and the heavy bandobast required to escort the three death row convicts to and from the court.
Two blasts at the Gateway of India and the Zaveri Bazaar had killed 52 people and injured more than 100 on August 25, 2003.
Five persons were arrested. Three — Fehmida, husband Hanif and Ashrat Ansari — were sentenced to death.
Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_bombay-high-court-to-conduct-2003-blasts-trial-via-video-conference_1598132
accessed on 14th October 2011
Published: Thursday, Oct 13, 2011, 8:00 IST
By DNA Correspondent | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
After the hearings on the confirmation of the death sentence for Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Kasab were conducted through video-conference — a first-of-its-kind arrangement made in the court to hear proceedings for security reasons, the HC will now conduct the death confirmation proceedings of the 2003 Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar blasts accused the same way.
A huge screen has been put up inside court room no 13, where Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice P D Kode are presently hearing confirmation proceedings.
Officials involved in the setting up of the video link between the Arthur Road prison and the court said, “The link is being tested and will soon become operational. The court will conduct the proceedings through it.”
The reason for the shift is the huge cost being incurred and the heavy bandobast required to escort the three death row convicts to and from the court.
Two blasts at the Gateway of India and the Zaveri Bazaar had killed 52 people and injured more than 100 on August 25, 2003.
Five persons were arrested. Three — Fehmida, husband Hanif and Ashrat Ansari — were sentenced to death.
Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_bombay-high-court-to-conduct-2003-blasts-trial-via-video-conference_1598132
accessed on 14th October 2011
Published: Thursday, Oct 13, 2011, 8:00 IST
By DNA Correspondent | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Dubai court awards death sentence to two Punjabis
Times of India
I P Singh, TNN Oct 11, 2011, 11.49AM IST
JALANDHAR: An appellate court of Dubai has not only confirmed the death sentence of an already convicted Punjabi man in the case of murder of two men from Kerala in 2009 but also awarded capital punishment to another Punjabi, who was earlier awarded life imprisonment by the trial court.
Ten other accused in the case - nine Punjabis and a Pakistani - have been sentenced to jail. The trial court had earlier awarded death sentence to Major Singh of Gurdaspur but the appellate court in its order on Monday also awarded capital punishment to Amarjit Singh of Batala.
Sentence of two convicts - Surinder Singh and Balwinder Singh - has been reduced from life term to 15 years, while the rest would face life term.
Dubai-based hotelier S P Singh Oberoi said that they had already engaged a lawyer to contest the case in Supreme Court. He said that he had been trying to locate the families of the two deceased men from Kerala, to reach a compromise, but had succeeded in his efforts. He added that they had requested the court that they be allowed to deposit blood money till the time the victims' families were found.
Two men from Kerala were killed in Dubai on January 1, 2009. Out of the 12 Punjabis accused of their murder, nine were convicted and sentenced in January last in a separate case of murder of another man from Kerala. Oberoi said that family of this man from Kerala could also not be found. The charges against them included intentional murder, bootlegging, consuming liquor and hiding evidence by concealing the body.
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-10-11/chandigarh/30266120_1_punjabis-death-sentence-life-term
accessed on 12th October 2011
I P Singh, TNN Oct 11, 2011, 11.49AM IST
JALANDHAR: An appellate court of Dubai has not only confirmed the death sentence of an already convicted Punjabi man in the case of murder of two men from Kerala in 2009 but also awarded capital punishment to another Punjabi, who was earlier awarded life imprisonment by the trial court.
Ten other accused in the case - nine Punjabis and a Pakistani - have been sentenced to jail. The trial court had earlier awarded death sentence to Major Singh of Gurdaspur but the appellate court in its order on Monday also awarded capital punishment to Amarjit Singh of Batala.
Sentence of two convicts - Surinder Singh and Balwinder Singh - has been reduced from life term to 15 years, while the rest would face life term.
Dubai-based hotelier S P Singh Oberoi said that they had already engaged a lawyer to contest the case in Supreme Court. He said that he had been trying to locate the families of the two deceased men from Kerala, to reach a compromise, but had succeeded in his efforts. He added that they had requested the court that they be allowed to deposit blood money till the time the victims' families were found.
Two men from Kerala were killed in Dubai on January 1, 2009. Out of the 12 Punjabis accused of their murder, nine were convicted and sentenced in January last in a separate case of murder of another man from Kerala. Oberoi said that family of this man from Kerala could also not be found. The charges against them included intentional murder, bootlegging, consuming liquor and hiding evidence by concealing the body.
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-10-11/chandigarh/30266120_1_punjabis-death-sentence-life-term
accessed on 12th October 2011
Kashmiri on Death Row Galvanises Opposition to Death Penalty
By Sana Altaf
SRINAGAR, India, Oct 10, 2011 (IPS) - "Is Afzal Guru really the person that so many Indians supposedly want dead? Or are they taking out their frustrations on an easy target?" asked Human Rights Watch, referring to the death sentence handed down to the Kashmiri man who was convicted of conspiracy in the 2001 suicide attack on the Indian Parliament.
"For many, Afzal bears the burden of representing all those who dare to oppose Indian rule in restive parts of the country, because the attack on Parliament was an attack on India," said the statement by Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia researcher for global rights watchdog HRW.
"Conversely, many Kashmiris would say that Afzal is a freedom fighter, planning an attempt at the symbol of Indian oppression," adds the statement, titled ‘Life, Not Death: Why Afzal Mustn’t Hang’. "Both views are flawed. For this multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural state to survive, Indians have to believe in equal justice for all. And in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, there has been consistent failure to deliver on this promise."
A Kashmiri, supported by a wife who is a doctor and a lone teenage son, Mohammad Afzal, commonly called Afzal Guru, was found guilty of conspiracy in the attack on parliament which killed more than a dozen people. He was given the death penalty, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2004.
The sentence was to be carried out in 2006, but the execution was stayed following a mercy plea filed by Afzal Guru.
Although most nations across the globe – a total of 139 – have abolished the death penalty, India continues the practice, as the World Day Against the Death Penalty once again rolled around on Oct. 10.
India joined 53 other countries to vote against the December 2007 United Nations General Assembly moratorium on executions, passed with 104 votes in favour and 29 abstentions. However, Indian judges generally follow the 1983 Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty may be resorted to only in the "rarest of rare cases".
Afzal’s death penalty has not gone down well amongst various quarters in Kashmir. The separatist leaders view it as an unjust step, which would endanger the political situation in Kashmir
"I am completely against execution of Afzal Guru. He didn’t get a fair trial. Hanging him would be pure human rights violation," said Shabir Ahmad Shah, the chairman of the Democratic Freedom Party, a separatist organisation.
He says that Afzal’s hanging could have a negative impact on the situation in Kashmir. "When Maqbool Bhat was hanged in India’s Tihar jail in 1984, it was followed by insurgency. And if Afzal is also hanged, it will as well result in dangerous consequences," Shabir told IPS. "People would surely come on streets and protest against it as no Kashmiri wants his hanging."
The unrest in Kashmir has its roots back in 1947, when Britain granted India independence and the Muslim-dominated areas became part of Pakistan. A U.N. resolution, meantime, gave Kashmiris the option to join either Hindu-dominated India or Pakistan or to become independent. But Kashmiris had no chance to make a choice as their homeland is claimed by both India and Pakistan.
Roughly a third of modern-day Kashmir is administered by Pakistan while the rest is under India. But many Kashmiris challenge this, and protesters living on the Indian side rose up in arms in 1989 in an insurgency that simmers to this day.
Saying Afzal did not get a fair trial, Sajjad Lone, another separatist leader, said intellectuals, NGOs and civil society in general needs to stand up against Afzal’s execution, which he said "will not suit the people of Kashmir."
Hardline separatist leader of Kashmir Syed Ali Shah Geelani warned of "dire consequences" if Afzal Guru is hanged, saying in a statement in August that "it will unleash a storm."
Human rights activists and organisations have also criticised Afzal's death sentence, which they see as a human rights abuse.
"Afzal Guru's case is being adjudicated upon in terms of its politics, not in relation to the violations of process and hearing that have taken place. The death penalty has no place in a democracy," said Angana Chatterji, a professor of social and cultural anthropology at the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) in San Francisco, and the co-convener of the International People's Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir.
Chatterji says despite the international movement to abolish capital punishment and the 2007 U.N. moratorium on executions, "India continues to impose the (death) penalty. The allocation of capital punishment continues to be influenced by racism, ethnocentrism, and class prejudice, authorising the state to act against a person's right to life."
Kashmir-based human rights activist Khurram Parvez, a co-founder of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), says the sentence handed down to Afzal was not based on a fair trial.
"If anyone reads that judgment, one would come to know that he was pronounced guilty on secondary evidence. No direct evidence was produced in the court against Afzal Guru," Parvez told IPS.
Citing the Supreme Court sentence, he said it states that "the incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, has shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender."
"When there is no evidence against Afzal, why should he be hanged? To satisfy the collective conscience of society, it appears India needs a sacrifice," Parvez added.
Advocate Faisal Qadri said the death penalty should be abolished in India. "I am completely against the death penalty. It is the worst kind of human rights violation. Humans have no right to kill anyone, even if it is a criminal."
And Qadri argued that in Afzal Guru’s case, capital punishment is completely unjustified: "Even India’s own leading lawyers admit that Afzal was not given a fair trial."
For ordinary people, the sentence handed to Afzal is a manifestation of India’s bias against Kashmiris.
"The Indian system is biased against Kashmiri people…there are scores of innocent Kashmiri youth who are arrested on the basis of mere suspicion and put behind bars for years with no evidence. How can we expect India to be just to Afzal?" said Iqbal (who provided only one name).
"Whenever any Kashmiri is found involved in any wrong act, India has to act in an unjust manner. That has been India's policy towards Kashmir," says Amina Maqbool, a political science student from the University of Kashmir
The HRW statement says the group "unequivocally opposes the death penalty. Guilty or not, we believe that neither Mohammad Afzal Guru, nor (law student) Priyadarshini Mattoo’s killer, Santosh Kumar Singh, nor (former Iraqi president) Saddam Hussein, nor anyone else, should be executed.
"Taking the life of a human being is inherently cruel, and as a form of punishment is unique in its irreversibility. The intrinsic fallibility of all criminal justice systems assures that even when there is a fair judicial process, innocent persons will still be executed. On a practical level, there is no evidence that it is an effective deterrent," it adds. (END)
Source: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=105411
Accessed on 12th October 2011
SRINAGAR, India, Oct 10, 2011 (IPS) - "Is Afzal Guru really the person that so many Indians supposedly want dead? Or are they taking out their frustrations on an easy target?" asked Human Rights Watch, referring to the death sentence handed down to the Kashmiri man who was convicted of conspiracy in the 2001 suicide attack on the Indian Parliament.
"For many, Afzal bears the burden of representing all those who dare to oppose Indian rule in restive parts of the country, because the attack on Parliament was an attack on India," said the statement by Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia researcher for global rights watchdog HRW.
"Conversely, many Kashmiris would say that Afzal is a freedom fighter, planning an attempt at the symbol of Indian oppression," adds the statement, titled ‘Life, Not Death: Why Afzal Mustn’t Hang’. "Both views are flawed. For this multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural state to survive, Indians have to believe in equal justice for all. And in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, there has been consistent failure to deliver on this promise."
A Kashmiri, supported by a wife who is a doctor and a lone teenage son, Mohammad Afzal, commonly called Afzal Guru, was found guilty of conspiracy in the attack on parliament which killed more than a dozen people. He was given the death penalty, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2004.
The sentence was to be carried out in 2006, but the execution was stayed following a mercy plea filed by Afzal Guru.
Although most nations across the globe – a total of 139 – have abolished the death penalty, India continues the practice, as the World Day Against the Death Penalty once again rolled around on Oct. 10.
India joined 53 other countries to vote against the December 2007 United Nations General Assembly moratorium on executions, passed with 104 votes in favour and 29 abstentions. However, Indian judges generally follow the 1983 Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty may be resorted to only in the "rarest of rare cases".
Afzal’s death penalty has not gone down well amongst various quarters in Kashmir. The separatist leaders view it as an unjust step, which would endanger the political situation in Kashmir
"I am completely against execution of Afzal Guru. He didn’t get a fair trial. Hanging him would be pure human rights violation," said Shabir Ahmad Shah, the chairman of the Democratic Freedom Party, a separatist organisation.
He says that Afzal’s hanging could have a negative impact on the situation in Kashmir. "When Maqbool Bhat was hanged in India’s Tihar jail in 1984, it was followed by insurgency. And if Afzal is also hanged, it will as well result in dangerous consequences," Shabir told IPS. "People would surely come on streets and protest against it as no Kashmiri wants his hanging."
The unrest in Kashmir has its roots back in 1947, when Britain granted India independence and the Muslim-dominated areas became part of Pakistan. A U.N. resolution, meantime, gave Kashmiris the option to join either Hindu-dominated India or Pakistan or to become independent. But Kashmiris had no chance to make a choice as their homeland is claimed by both India and Pakistan.
Roughly a third of modern-day Kashmir is administered by Pakistan while the rest is under India. But many Kashmiris challenge this, and protesters living on the Indian side rose up in arms in 1989 in an insurgency that simmers to this day.
Saying Afzal did not get a fair trial, Sajjad Lone, another separatist leader, said intellectuals, NGOs and civil society in general needs to stand up against Afzal’s execution, which he said "will not suit the people of Kashmir."
Hardline separatist leader of Kashmir Syed Ali Shah Geelani warned of "dire consequences" if Afzal Guru is hanged, saying in a statement in August that "it will unleash a storm."
Human rights activists and organisations have also criticised Afzal's death sentence, which they see as a human rights abuse.
"Afzal Guru's case is being adjudicated upon in terms of its politics, not in relation to the violations of process and hearing that have taken place. The death penalty has no place in a democracy," said Angana Chatterji, a professor of social and cultural anthropology at the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) in San Francisco, and the co-convener of the International People's Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir.
Chatterji says despite the international movement to abolish capital punishment and the 2007 U.N. moratorium on executions, "India continues to impose the (death) penalty. The allocation of capital punishment continues to be influenced by racism, ethnocentrism, and class prejudice, authorising the state to act against a person's right to life."
Kashmir-based human rights activist Khurram Parvez, a co-founder of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), says the sentence handed down to Afzal was not based on a fair trial.
"If anyone reads that judgment, one would come to know that he was pronounced guilty on secondary evidence. No direct evidence was produced in the court against Afzal Guru," Parvez told IPS.
Citing the Supreme Court sentence, he said it states that "the incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, has shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender."
"When there is no evidence against Afzal, why should he be hanged? To satisfy the collective conscience of society, it appears India needs a sacrifice," Parvez added.
Advocate Faisal Qadri said the death penalty should be abolished in India. "I am completely against the death penalty. It is the worst kind of human rights violation. Humans have no right to kill anyone, even if it is a criminal."
And Qadri argued that in Afzal Guru’s case, capital punishment is completely unjustified: "Even India’s own leading lawyers admit that Afzal was not given a fair trial."
For ordinary people, the sentence handed to Afzal is a manifestation of India’s bias against Kashmiris.
"The Indian system is biased against Kashmiri people…there are scores of innocent Kashmiri youth who are arrested on the basis of mere suspicion and put behind bars for years with no evidence. How can we expect India to be just to Afzal?" said Iqbal (who provided only one name).
"Whenever any Kashmiri is found involved in any wrong act, India has to act in an unjust manner. That has been India's policy towards Kashmir," says Amina Maqbool, a political science student from the University of Kashmir
The HRW statement says the group "unequivocally opposes the death penalty. Guilty or not, we believe that neither Mohammad Afzal Guru, nor (law student) Priyadarshini Mattoo’s killer, Santosh Kumar Singh, nor (former Iraqi president) Saddam Hussein, nor anyone else, should be executed.
"Taking the life of a human being is inherently cruel, and as a form of punishment is unique in its irreversibility. The intrinsic fallibility of all criminal justice systems assures that even when there is a fair judicial process, innocent persons will still be executed. On a practical level, there is no evidence that it is an effective deterrent," it adds. (END)
Source: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=105411
Accessed on 12th October 2011
A matter of life and death
By Kuldip Nayar
Published: October 10, 2011
The Express Tribune: With the International Herald Tribune
I have no personal differences with people who want to abolish capital punishment. It is their principled stand, as they claim, and it holds good in all cases where death sentences have been awarded. The risk of hanging an innocent person is too great, they say. Not even the state has the right to end a life which is given by God. The rationale of nearly 150 countries is more or less the same and they have taken away from their courts the power to award death sentences, however heinous the crime maybe.
India and the US are also under pressure from human rights organisations to change their archaic laws and ban the death sentence. My own belief is that the death sentence is barbaric and it needs to be abolished. It reminds me of the days when the dictum of tooth for tooth prevailed. Our government is still stuck on the idea that death sentence acts as a deterrent or that it assuages the grief of those who lose their dear ones.
I am bewildered at the attitude of the leaders and activists who ask for clemency on behalf of the culprits, who should have been hanged long ago.
This faulty thinking first made the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, J Jayalalithaa, ask for clemency of three convicts of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. Now, Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal has asked mercy for DP Singh Bhuller who triggered a bomb blast in September 1993, which killed nine people.
And the latest in line is the chief minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), Omar Abdullah, who had raised the question of whether the resolution for clemency of Afzal Guru by his state assembly would go unnoticed, as was the Tamil Nadu assembly’s resolution. Afzal Guru was sentenced to death for having attacked the parliament, which is the symbol of India’s democratic polity. All three chief ministers have politicised criminal acts. They have never demanded the abolition of the death penalty. The cases they espouse and believe, give them electoral advantage. Since politicians weigh everything on the scales of vote, they do not mind preaching something against the constitution.
Or, is it possible that they are afraid to take a stand on the basic issue and prefer to go along wherever the wind blows at a particular time? The raucous created in the Tamil Nadu assembly has been copied by the AJK assembly, beating all records. In both the cases, the ruling parties have been in the forefront in fomenting trouble.
The Supreme Court’s remark holds well in all the three cases. Taking up the mercy petition filed by Bhullar, the court has asked the government to explain the delay. After a lapse of eight years, the president who disposes mercy petitions rejected the plea on May 25 this year. All countries in South Asia have jumped into the arena. Sarabjeet Singh must languish in a Pakistani jail because he is the prize which Islamabad wants to cash in on some day to extract concession from New Delhi. Likewise, India must have a hostage in the shape of one prisoner or another from Pakistan.
There is no other way except to go back to what the law demands. Yet, I believe that there should be no hanging of Afzal Guru, D P Singh Bhuller, Sarabjeet Singh and the Rajiv Gandhi assassins. Their death sentences should be commuted to life imprisonment. And life sentence should mean sentence for life, till the culprit breathes his last in jail.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 11th, 2011.
Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/271019/a-matter-of-life-and-death/
accessed on 12th October 2011
Published: October 10, 2011
The Express Tribune: With the International Herald Tribune
I have no personal differences with people who want to abolish capital punishment. It is their principled stand, as they claim, and it holds good in all cases where death sentences have been awarded. The risk of hanging an innocent person is too great, they say. Not even the state has the right to end a life which is given by God. The rationale of nearly 150 countries is more or less the same and they have taken away from their courts the power to award death sentences, however heinous the crime maybe.
India and the US are also under pressure from human rights organisations to change their archaic laws and ban the death sentence. My own belief is that the death sentence is barbaric and it needs to be abolished. It reminds me of the days when the dictum of tooth for tooth prevailed. Our government is still stuck on the idea that death sentence acts as a deterrent or that it assuages the grief of those who lose their dear ones.
I am bewildered at the attitude of the leaders and activists who ask for clemency on behalf of the culprits, who should have been hanged long ago.
This faulty thinking first made the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, J Jayalalithaa, ask for clemency of three convicts of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. Now, Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal has asked mercy for DP Singh Bhuller who triggered a bomb blast in September 1993, which killed nine people.
And the latest in line is the chief minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), Omar Abdullah, who had raised the question of whether the resolution for clemency of Afzal Guru by his state assembly would go unnoticed, as was the Tamil Nadu assembly’s resolution. Afzal Guru was sentenced to death for having attacked the parliament, which is the symbol of India’s democratic polity. All three chief ministers have politicised criminal acts. They have never demanded the abolition of the death penalty. The cases they espouse and believe, give them electoral advantage. Since politicians weigh everything on the scales of vote, they do not mind preaching something against the constitution.
Or, is it possible that they are afraid to take a stand on the basic issue and prefer to go along wherever the wind blows at a particular time? The raucous created in the Tamil Nadu assembly has been copied by the AJK assembly, beating all records. In both the cases, the ruling parties have been in the forefront in fomenting trouble.
The Supreme Court’s remark holds well in all the three cases. Taking up the mercy petition filed by Bhullar, the court has asked the government to explain the delay. After a lapse of eight years, the president who disposes mercy petitions rejected the plea on May 25 this year. All countries in South Asia have jumped into the arena. Sarabjeet Singh must languish in a Pakistani jail because he is the prize which Islamabad wants to cash in on some day to extract concession from New Delhi. Likewise, India must have a hostage in the shape of one prisoner or another from Pakistan.
There is no other way except to go back to what the law demands. Yet, I believe that there should be no hanging of Afzal Guru, D P Singh Bhuller, Sarabjeet Singh and the Rajiv Gandhi assassins. Their death sentences should be commuted to life imprisonment. And life sentence should mean sentence for life, till the culprit breathes his last in jail.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 11th, 2011.
Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/271019/a-matter-of-life-and-death/
accessed on 12th October 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Rajiv assassins' plea should not be moved out of Tamil Nadu: Govt
New Delhi: The Tamil Nadu government today opposed in the Supreme Court a plea to shift out of the Madras High Court the appeals of three Rajiv Gandhi assassins, challenging their death penalty on account of an 11-year delay in deciding their mercy petition by the President.
Tamil Nadu's Additional Advocate General Gurukrishna Kumar opposed the plea for transfer of the three convicts' appeals out of the state High Court, denying allegations made before the apex court that the atmosphere in the state was too "vitiated and surcharged" to hold a free and fair hearing in the case.
Kumar also questioned the locus standi of petitioner L K Venkat, seeking the apex court's direction for transfer of the case out of Madras High Court to the Supreme Court.
Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, appearing for the three convicts on death row, also opposed the transfer plea on the ground that Article 139A (relating to transfer of certain cases) gives power only to the Attorney General of India or the aggrieved parties to file a petition for transfer.
Venkat's counsel L Nandkumar, however, submitted that a free and fair hearing of the proceedings cannot be held in the Madras High Court owing to the "surcharged, hostile and vitiated" atmosphere prevailing there.
After hearing the arguments by various parties, a bench of justices G S Signhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked the state to file a counter affidavit within a week and posted the matter for further hearing to October 19.
The bench asked Tamil Nadu government to file a counter affidavit on the plea for shifting appeals of the three condemned prisoners in the assassination case out of the state high court.
"Though the request made by the state additional advocate general is unreasonable, we are granting time for filing the counter affidavit," the bench said.
The judges were irked at Tamil Nadu government's request as it had failed to reply till date to its September 15 notice on plea.
On a petition by the three death row convicts, the Madras High Court had earlier stayed their hanging and had issued notices to the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government.
The three convicts - Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan alias Arivu - had challenged the sentence despite the same having been upheld earlier by the apex court and the President having rejected their mercy pleas subsequently.
Venkat subsequently had moved the apex court seeking transfer of their appeals out of the state high court and the apex court had issued notices on the petition to the state.
Venkat had alleged in his plea that the convicts' appeals challenging their death sentences cannot be heard in a free and fair atmosphere in the state as several supporters of the banned LLTE were interfering with the functioning of the judiciary by raising slogans in support of the convicts.
Source : http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rajiv-assassins-plea-should-not-be-moved-out-of-tamil-nadu-govt-139995
Tamil Nadu's Additional Advocate General Gurukrishna Kumar opposed the plea for transfer of the three convicts' appeals out of the state High Court, denying allegations made before the apex court that the atmosphere in the state was too "vitiated and surcharged" to hold a free and fair hearing in the case.
Kumar also questioned the locus standi of petitioner L K Venkat, seeking the apex court's direction for transfer of the case out of Madras High Court to the Supreme Court.
Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, appearing for the three convicts on death row, also opposed the transfer plea on the ground that Article 139A (relating to transfer of certain cases) gives power only to the Attorney General of India or the aggrieved parties to file a petition for transfer.
Venkat's counsel L Nandkumar, however, submitted that a free and fair hearing of the proceedings cannot be held in the Madras High Court owing to the "surcharged, hostile and vitiated" atmosphere prevailing there.
After hearing the arguments by various parties, a bench of justices G S Signhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked the state to file a counter affidavit within a week and posted the matter for further hearing to October 19.
The bench asked Tamil Nadu government to file a counter affidavit on the plea for shifting appeals of the three condemned prisoners in the assassination case out of the state high court.
"Though the request made by the state additional advocate general is unreasonable, we are granting time for filing the counter affidavit," the bench said.
The judges were irked at Tamil Nadu government's request as it had failed to reply till date to its September 15 notice on plea.
On a petition by the three death row convicts, the Madras High Court had earlier stayed their hanging and had issued notices to the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government.
The three convicts - Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan alias Arivu - had challenged the sentence despite the same having been upheld earlier by the apex court and the President having rejected their mercy pleas subsequently.
Venkat subsequently had moved the apex court seeking transfer of their appeals out of the state high court and the apex court had issued notices on the petition to the state.
Venkat had alleged in his plea that the convicts' appeals challenging their death sentences cannot be heard in a free and fair atmosphere in the state as several supporters of the banned LLTE were interfering with the functioning of the judiciary by raising slogans in support of the convicts.
Source : http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rajiv-assassins-plea-should-not-be-moved-out-of-tamil-nadu-govt-139995
EU outlines death penalty policy
In a statement on the occasion of World and European Day against the Death Penalty, which is being observed today, the European Union has expressed the hope that Trinidad and Tobago will “soon choose to leave the minority group of countries that still retain the death penalty”. The EU stated: “After three decades of steady progress, more than two-thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty. The EU is leading the efforts to achieve universal abolition of the death penalty. “We welcome the UN’s recent resolutions on the global moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to its complete abolition, supported by a wide coalition of States from all regions of the world.
“The growing support granted to UN resolutions on this matter in 2007, 2008 and 2010 confirms an increasing international trend against the death penalty. “At the same time, while we acknowledge the growing number of countries which have done away with the death penalty (the figure grew from 55 to 97, between 1993 and 2009), we cannot ignore the fact that 58 countries in the world still retain the death penalty. “The EU considers the death penalty to be a cruel and inhuman punishment, which represents an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity. It only serves to aggravate a culture of violence and retribution.
“In its efforts against the death penalty, the EU is actively supported by states from all regions of the world. The EU encourages public debate, strengthening public opposition and putting pressure on retentionist countries to abolish the death penalty, or at least introduce a moratorium as a first step. “The EU also acts against the death penalty in multilateral fora such as the United Nations; a culmination of this effort was the resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 18, 2007.” The UN General Assembly adopted in 2008, non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual abolition.
The vote on the non-binding resolution was 54 against, 29 abstentions and 104 in favour. “At present there is a worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty. Around 139 countries have abolished the death penalty by law or practice.” Although many nations have abolished capital punishment, Wikipedia estimates that more than 60 per cent of the world’s population live in countries where executions take place. Among the countries that retain capital punishment are the United States of America, China, India and Indonesia—the four most populous nations in the world. Capital punishment is also legal in Israel, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia. The execution of prisoners found guilty of capital crimes in T&T is still the law of the land, despite efforts by anti-capital punishment campaigners to lobby the Government to change the law.
source: http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2011/10/10/eu-outlines-death-penalty-policy
accessed on 10th October 2011
“The growing support granted to UN resolutions on this matter in 2007, 2008 and 2010 confirms an increasing international trend against the death penalty. “At the same time, while we acknowledge the growing number of countries which have done away with the death penalty (the figure grew from 55 to 97, between 1993 and 2009), we cannot ignore the fact that 58 countries in the world still retain the death penalty. “The EU considers the death penalty to be a cruel and inhuman punishment, which represents an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity. It only serves to aggravate a culture of violence and retribution.
“In its efforts against the death penalty, the EU is actively supported by states from all regions of the world. The EU encourages public debate, strengthening public opposition and putting pressure on retentionist countries to abolish the death penalty, or at least introduce a moratorium as a first step. “The EU also acts against the death penalty in multilateral fora such as the United Nations; a culmination of this effort was the resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 18, 2007.” The UN General Assembly adopted in 2008, non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual abolition.
The vote on the non-binding resolution was 54 against, 29 abstentions and 104 in favour. “At present there is a worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty. Around 139 countries have abolished the death penalty by law or practice.” Although many nations have abolished capital punishment, Wikipedia estimates that more than 60 per cent of the world’s population live in countries where executions take place. Among the countries that retain capital punishment are the United States of America, China, India and Indonesia—the four most populous nations in the world. Capital punishment is also legal in Israel, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia. The execution of prisoners found guilty of capital crimes in T&T is still the law of the land, despite efforts by anti-capital punishment campaigners to lobby the Government to change the law.
source: http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2011/10/10/eu-outlines-death-penalty-policy
accessed on 10th October 2011
Abolish death penalty, EU tells India
Death sentences for many Indian fugitives hang in balance as EU supports abolition of death penalty
Iftikhar Gilani
New Delhi
The issues of the execution of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and charging Abu Salem, a close associate of international fugitive Dawood Ibrahim, under clauses demanding death sentence are set to create a diplomatic row between India and Europe. The European Union, on Monday, declared abolition of the death penalty the world over as one of their human rights and foreign policy objectives to mark 10 October as the World and European Day against the Death Penalty.
In a joint declaration by Catherine Ashton, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, reaffirmed united opposition to the death penalty, and committed to work for its worldwide abolition.
“We consider capital punishment to be inhumane, and a violation of human dignity. Experience in Europe has taught us that the death penalty does not prevent an increase in violent crime, and nor does it bring justice to the victims of such crimes. Any capital punishment resulting from a miscarriage of justice, from which no legal system can be immune, represents irreversible loss of human life,” said the declaration.
Earlier, in a letter to the Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, Ashton had made it clear that the grouping opposes death sentence pronounced to Prof. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, a Khalistani militant. Bhullar is facing the gallows after President Pratibha Patil rejected his petition of mercy.
Bhullar was deported from Germany on 18 January, 1995, after his application seeking political asylum was rejected by German authorities. The decision to deport him was declared illegal by a Frankfurt court two years later. Bhullar was then arrested by Delhi Police at the airport on charges of falsification of documents. However, he was later handed over to the Punjab Police, who booked him under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, for engineering bomb blasts at the Youth Congress office in Delhi and elsewhere in Punjab.
Outgoing German ambassador to India Thomas Matussek believed that Germany wouldn’t have deported him, knowing the fate of his case. He said Bhullar’s deportation came as he had not disclosed full fact before German authorities and the court there. “Unfortunately for him and for us, he presented a forged passport and gave totally wrong story. When that was put to court it was clear there was no basis for his asylum and court ruled he could be deported,” he said. “Later on, a real story came out. He hadn’t told us,” the ambassador added. Matussek made it clear that in a similar case in future, the person would not be deported. If this case comes up in Germany now and he tells the full story, we will not deport him,” he maintained.
In the case of Abu Salem, the Portugal High Court has cancelled the extradition order of 2005 under which the gangster was handed to Indian authorities and was brought to India. The High Court had cancelled the extradition order on grounds that the terms and conditions of extradition were violated by Indian authorities.
As per the extradition order, he shall not be given the death sentence and not be put to trial for the offences other than mentioned in the extradition order and not be given a sentence of 25 years. The CBI has already filed an appeal at the Supreme Court in Lisbon, contending that India has strictly adhered to the terms and conditions of the extradition order.
The declaration also called for full implementation of a recent UN resolution, which called for global moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to its complete abolition. The EU is also the first regional body to have adopted rules prohibiting the trade in goods used for capital punishment (and torture and ill-treatment), as well as the supply of technical assistance related to such goods. The EU’s political commitment has been matched by substantial financial support for concrete projects.
Iftikhar Gilani is Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com.
iftikhar@tehelka.com
Source: http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws101011World.asp
accessed on 10th October 2011
Iftikhar Gilani
New Delhi
The issues of the execution of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and charging Abu Salem, a close associate of international fugitive Dawood Ibrahim, under clauses demanding death sentence are set to create a diplomatic row between India and Europe. The European Union, on Monday, declared abolition of the death penalty the world over as one of their human rights and foreign policy objectives to mark 10 October as the World and European Day against the Death Penalty.
In a joint declaration by Catherine Ashton, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, reaffirmed united opposition to the death penalty, and committed to work for its worldwide abolition.
“We consider capital punishment to be inhumane, and a violation of human dignity. Experience in Europe has taught us that the death penalty does not prevent an increase in violent crime, and nor does it bring justice to the victims of such crimes. Any capital punishment resulting from a miscarriage of justice, from which no legal system can be immune, represents irreversible loss of human life,” said the declaration.
Earlier, in a letter to the Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, Ashton had made it clear that the grouping opposes death sentence pronounced to Prof. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, a Khalistani militant. Bhullar is facing the gallows after President Pratibha Patil rejected his petition of mercy.
Bhullar was deported from Germany on 18 January, 1995, after his application seeking political asylum was rejected by German authorities. The decision to deport him was declared illegal by a Frankfurt court two years later. Bhullar was then arrested by Delhi Police at the airport on charges of falsification of documents. However, he was later handed over to the Punjab Police, who booked him under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, for engineering bomb blasts at the Youth Congress office in Delhi and elsewhere in Punjab.
Outgoing German ambassador to India Thomas Matussek believed that Germany wouldn’t have deported him, knowing the fate of his case. He said Bhullar’s deportation came as he had not disclosed full fact before German authorities and the court there. “Unfortunately for him and for us, he presented a forged passport and gave totally wrong story. When that was put to court it was clear there was no basis for his asylum and court ruled he could be deported,” he said. “Later on, a real story came out. He hadn’t told us,” the ambassador added. Matussek made it clear that in a similar case in future, the person would not be deported. If this case comes up in Germany now and he tells the full story, we will not deport him,” he maintained.
In the case of Abu Salem, the Portugal High Court has cancelled the extradition order of 2005 under which the gangster was handed to Indian authorities and was brought to India. The High Court had cancelled the extradition order on grounds that the terms and conditions of extradition were violated by Indian authorities.
As per the extradition order, he shall not be given the death sentence and not be put to trial for the offences other than mentioned in the extradition order and not be given a sentence of 25 years. The CBI has already filed an appeal at the Supreme Court in Lisbon, contending that India has strictly adhered to the terms and conditions of the extradition order.
The declaration also called for full implementation of a recent UN resolution, which called for global moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to its complete abolition. The EU is also the first regional body to have adopted rules prohibiting the trade in goods used for capital punishment (and torture and ill-treatment), as well as the supply of technical assistance related to such goods. The EU’s political commitment has been matched by substantial financial support for concrete projects.
Iftikhar Gilani is Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com.
iftikhar@tehelka.com
Source: http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws101011World.asp
accessed on 10th October 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)