Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122
Results 211 to 217 of 217

Thread: India

  1. #211
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Bombay HC: Death row convict to attend wedding of his daughter

    Indian Express

    The Bombay High Court on Monday allowed a death-row convict from Kolhapur to attend his daughter’s wedding with a police escort. The accused need not pay escort charges as he belongs to the below poverty line category. Convicted in 2021, the man was sentenced to death for brutally murdering his mother.

    A division bench of Justice Ajey S Gadkari and Justice Prakash D Naik allowed the man to leave jail on February 23 to 25, with a police escort from 9 am to 6 pm each day to attend the wedding rituals. In July 2021, the sessions court in Kolhapur had convicted Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi and sentenced him to be hanged to death for murdering his mother and extracting her body organs with an intention to cook and eat them.

    The trial court had observed that “it was the rarest of the rare” case and it “shook the social conscience of the society.”

    The state government, in 2021, had filed a plea in HC seeking confirmation of the death penalty, which is still pending. Advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry told the bench that the motive of the act is unknown and even his family is shocked. “He was a wonderful man, they all say. Unblemished record. He used to have frequent headaches and consumed liquor regularly,” Chaudhary submitted. The bench did not grant temporary bail and the court clarified that it was “allowing him to be taken out of prison for three days only because it is his daughter’s wedding.”

    https://indianexpress.com/article/ci...ghter-8457032/
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  2. #212
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Are courts awarding too many death sentences? 539 convicts on death row in 2022, highest in 17 yrs

    By APOORVA MANDHAN
    The Print

    One hundred and sixty-five death sentences, the most in a single year since 2000 — the year 2022 saw capital punishment exact a heavy toll in India. Moreover, the number of prisoners on death row, at 539, was the highest in 17 years.

    Several crimes in India provide for the death penalty as a punishment, with life imprisonment as an alternative — allowing trial court judges to make the decision. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death sentence in its landmark Bachan Singh judgment in 1989, but on the condition that it could be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases.

    However, what exactly does “rarest of rare” mean, and are trial court judges awarding the death penalty only in such cases?

    A study of death sentences imposed by trial courts between 2000 and 2015 by Project 39A — the National Law University (NLU) Delhi’s criminal justice programme — published in 2016 showed that less than 5 per cent of these were confirmed by appellate courts, and around 30 per cent ended in acquittals on appeal.

    A look at trial court judgments on the death penalty and data related to these judgments shows that the sentence is often awarded without adhering to the Supreme Court’s guidelines and precedents on the issue.

    Death sentences are being handed down without correctly applying the framework laid down in the Bachan Singh judgment and considering mitigating circumstances or the possibility of reformation.

    The judgments also reveal an inconsistent understanding of the meaning of the phrase “rarest of rare” — which is the only kind of case that can be lead to the death penalty.

    Legal experts believe that, among other things, this is either because the trial courts are unaware of what the law on death penalty sentencing requires or, despite being aware, they ignore it. They also assert that over the years, the death penalty has started to be equated to “justice” itself.

    ‘Rarest of rare’
    In the Bachan Singh judgment, the court laid down the “rarest of rare” doctrine. However, the 213-paragraph judgment mentions the phrase only once, saying that the death sentence can be imposed only in the “rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed”.

    In totality, the broad framework in Bachan Singh asks courts to weigh the circumstances of the offence and the offender, while also considering the probability of reformation, and the suitability of the alternative option of life imprisonment.

    However, what exactly constitutes the “rarest of rare cases” remains unclear.

    While a few subsequent judgments link it to public opinion or to the “collective conscience” being shocked, others have ruled that the “‘rarest of rare policy…may not be essentially tuned to public opinion”.

    Legal experts have, therefore, pointed out that there is disagreement over the content and application of the “rarest of rare” framework, which has led to arbitrariness in the process.

    On the application of the framework by trial courts, a report published by NLU Delhi’s Project 39A on the 306 death sentences awarded from 2018 to 2022, showed that nearly 10 per cent of the judgments did not mention what made the case fall under the “rarest of the rare” category.

    Nearly 70 per cent of these judgments classified the case as a “rarest of rare” solely on the basis of aggravating circumstances relating to the crime.

    Several trial courts continue to award the death penalty in similar fashion.

    For instance, in January this year, a special judge in Lucknow awarded the death penalty to 31-year-old IIT Bombay graduate Ahmad Murtaza Abbasi for his attack on policemen at the Gorakhnath temple in Uttar Pradesh’s Gorakhpur district last year.

    In its 15-page sentencing order, the court refers to the Bachan Singh judgment and talks about the need for analysis of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but does not mention the criterion of “rarest of rare” even once, let alone reasons the case falls in this category.

    In another judgment passed in November last year, a special Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) court in Uttar Pradesh awarded the death penalty to two convicts — Haleem and Rizwan — for the kidnapping and gangrape of a minor.

    In a 10-page order, the court refers to the “rarest of rare” doctrine twice, explaining that the death penalty cannot be awarded in a murder case unless the crime has been carried out in a “cruel or diabolic manner” or has been committed brutally.

    However, beyond this, the court did not mention how this case fell in the “rarest of rare” category. Instead, it goes on to compare a woman’s body to a “temple”, and finds it ironic that such an incident happened “in a country like India which worships goddesses like Durga for shakti, Saraswati for knowledge”.

    Also Read: SC confirmed LeT terrorist’s death sentence. Before that, his petition saved 19 from the gallows

    ‘Death penalty equated to justice’
    Trial courts, therefore, often seem to be awarding the death penalty in violation of the Supreme Court judgments.

    Anup Surendranath, a professor of law at NLU Delhi and executive director Project 39A, feels that there is an “ever-widening gap” between the Supreme Court’s guidelines and what the trial courts are doing.

    According to him, trial court judgments sentencing convicts to death row are riddled with “erroneous procedure, incorrect application of law and arbitrariness”. However, he told ThePrint that none of the possible explanations for this “cast the district courts in a good light”.

    “Either they are unaware of what the law on the death penalty sentencing requires or, despite being aware, they ignore it because it has stringent and demanding requirements,” Surendranath explained.

    Justice Madan B. Lokur, a former Supreme Court judge, also feels that “the heinous and macabre nature of crimes, and their reportage in the media, seems to have increased over the years”. This, he says, “has resulted in a heightened reaction from the victim’s family, obviously, and also from society”.

    “The only demand earlier was for justice. Now it is for the death penalty, which is equated with justice,” he asserted. He told ThePrint that, although he has no evidence for this, he believes “the trial judge is placed under a subliminal pressure to award a death sentence disregarding the Supreme Court guidelines”.

    Surendranath feels that a lot more needs to be done than just making changes to the law.

    “How should judicial academies design their training to ensure judges are aware of the requirements of the law? Considering that the law is embedded in society, do judicial academies do enough to sensitise judges to keep their biases away from decision-making? Are trial courts well-equipped with resources to meet the demands of the formal law? These are some of the many questions that we need to ask,” he added.

    ‘How does a judge decide collective conscience?’
    What are the reasons the courts are giving when choosing the death penalty over a life sentence?

    According to the Project 39A report published in October last year, among 282 death sentences imposed between 2018 and 2022, more than 77 per cent of the judgments mentioned “society-centric goals” such as “collective conscience” or “society’s cry for justice”.

    This is despite the fact that the Bachan Singh judgment had asserted that judges should not become “oracles or spokesmen of public opinion”.

    However, there are subsequent Supreme Court judgments — including the one that upheld the death penalty for Dhananjoy Chatterjee, who was hanged in August 2004 — that have held “collective conscience” or “society’s cry for justice” to be valid justifications for imposing the death sentence.

    The Lucknow court’s judgment in the Gorakhnath temple attack case also mentions the Dhananjoy Chatterjee judgment. The trial court said this Supreme Court judgment had laid down the law that “courts should impose appropriate punishment proportional to the crime committed so that the court’s decision can show the disgust for the crime by the public”.

    Commenting on the introduction of “collective conscience” as a sentencing factor into capital sentencing in India, Justice Lokur said he does not believe that there is anything like a “collective conscience”.

    “It’s a wonderful journalistic phrase, nothing more. How does a judge decide that there is a collective conscience and what it desires,” he asked.

    Surendranath also pointed out that trial courts have adopted a “crime centric-approach” to the death penalty.

    “The layperson on the street might want that crime-centric approach to determining punishment, but that’s not what the law requires. Ultimately, our judges must realise that their duty is to give effect to the law and not to the collective conscience or public opinion,” he said.

    Also Read: ‘Murderer’s mom’—Not just the prisoner, their family also goes on death row in India

    Aggravating and mitigating circumstances
    The Supreme Court requires judges to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to both the crime and the accused before determining the appropriate sentence.

    The defence counsel, the state, and the judge all have a duty to ensure that all material helpful in mitigation is available before the court.

    The trial courts are then required to to look into the background of the accused, their personal circumstances, mental health and age, among other things, to ascertain if the case is fit for a death sentence and also to determine if the option of life imprisonment has been “unquestionably foreclosed”.

    In a significant judgment delivered in May last year (Manoj vs The State of Madhya Pradesh), the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of reformation in capital sentencing, and mandated jail conduct, psychological and psychiatric evaluation reports of the convict to assist the court in assessing reform. The court, therefore, laid down guidelines for the collection of mitigating material by trial courts.

    However, according to the Project 39A report, more than 66 per cent of the death sentences out of the total 306 from 2018 to 2020 were imposed without accepting any mitigating circumstance as a relevant factor. Of the total sentences, 40 per cent of the judgments did not even mention any mitigating circumstances.

    As against this, a total of 274 — 90 per cent of the judgments — cited the brutality of the crime as an aggravating circumstance for imposing the death sentence. The report also found that more 40 per cent of the judgments did not even mention reformation in their reasoning for sentencing.

    The trend continues in more recent judgments as well.

    In the Uttar Pradesh POCSO court order awarding the death penalty by the mentioned earlier, the court had asked why two accused ought to be awarded death penalty. It went on to answer this question by listing the injuries on the girl’s body, instead of analysing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances related to the crime and the criminal.

    In the 10-page sentencing order, there are four lines that speak of the mitigating circumstances for both the accused together.

    Death penalty in less than 2 days
    In September 2022, the Supreme Court acknowledged the gaps in death penalty sentencing and asked a five-judge bench to look into framing guidelines for courts to follow when examining potential mitigating factors for convicts faced with the death sentence.

    One issue the bench is set to consider relates to the amount of time the convict must be given to present the relevant material on sentencing after the conviction but before the hearing on sentencing takes place. In its order, the apex court acknowledged there was no clarity on how much time the collection and hearing of this material and actually requires.

    Surendranath explained that information about the offender’s life history before the crime and the time spent in prison is extremely significant for the judges to make their decision between a life and death sentence.

    However, he pointed out that this information would not be present in the case records, and putting it together requires time and skills that go beyond that of a lawyer. “A defence team in a death penalty case also requires the expertise of personnel trained in social sciences like psychology, social work and sociology to gather this information,” he added.

    According to the Project 39A report, of the 304 death sentences awarded between 2018 and 2020, the sentencing hearing took place in less than two days in 166 instances (54.6 per cent). As many as 108 death sentences (35.53 per cent) were the outcome of a sentencing hearing that was conducted in two to seven days, and 30 (9.87 per cent) were awarded with the sentencing hearing being held after more than a week.

    In the Gorakhnath temple attack case, Abbasi was convicted on 27 January, and the sentence was awarded two days later, on 30 January this year.

    Surendranath told ThePrint that, given the nature of the inquiry the defence team has to undertake before a sentencing hearing, “it is not difficult to see why sufficient time between the date of conviction and the sentencing hearing is essential.”

    However, he also said that quality of the information is equally important to ensure that judges are able to truly understand the person they are looking to sentence.

    Additionally, Justice Lokur feels that there should be a “considerable gap” between conviction and sentencing, “so that time is available for passions to cool and so the rights of the victim’s family and the accused are preserved.”

    Also Read: ‘Sealed covers’ contrary to fair justice, observes Supreme Court, wants to end practice

    A fresh look

    Speaking to ThePrint, Surendranath said the Bachan Singh framework had been conceptualised with murder cases, because those were the only offences eligible for the death penalty at the time. However, since then, the penalty has been extended to other offences as well, including those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

    He, therefore, believes that “the vague and deficient ‘rarest of rare’ needs both clarifications on its different elements as well as a fundamental rethink from the perspective of non-homicidal death-eligible cases.”

    Now that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is set to look at framing guidelines for courts to follow when examining potential mitigating factors for convicts faced with the death sentence, Surendranath hopes it will bring some clarity.

    He told ThePrint that “it has to be said in no uncertain terms that the court cannot sentence a person to death without taking their life history and life in prison into account”.

    For this, he asserted that the bench would have to look at several factors, including quality legal representation at the sentencing hearing; the meaning of sufficient time between conviction and the sentencing hearing; the duty of the prosecution and judicial standards that must be met while considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances; the offender’s ability to reform; and the alternative of life imprisonment.

    Surendranath added that it’s important that the bench also consider all offences that are now punishable by the death penalty while framing these guidelines.

    Justice Lokur feels the Constitution bench must look at the entire issue in detail and lay down guidelines. “However, there will always be a difference of opinion on such matters, including implementation, like the “rarest of rare” doctrine. But it will certainly introduce some clarity,” he said.

    “Ultimately, the Supreme Court may have to decide whether the death penalty should be abolished and if not, for which category of cases should it be retained,” he added.

    https://theprint.in/judiciary/are-co...7-yrs/1463084/
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. #213
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    "However, the duo moved the high court against the death warrants. They sought commutation of the death sentences to life imprisonment claiming an “inordinate” and “unexplained” delay of about four years (1,509 days) in executing the death penalty after the Supreme Court verdict, causing violation of their fundamental rights to life."

    Pune Crime Files: After raping and killing BPO staffer, this cabbie and friend returned for more pick-ups

    Written by Chandan Haygunde
    Indian Express

    It was the time when Pune, known for its educational institutions, started gaining fame as an IT hub in the country after prominent companies and BPOs began setting up shop in the city. The city provided huge employment opportunities to young men and women coming from across the country for education and jobs.

    Among them was 22-year-old Jyotikumari Choudhari, a native of Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh. She graduated from a college in Pune and joined the Wipro BPO (then called Spectramind) as an associate in December 2006. She was staying happily with her sister and brother-in-law in the Panchavati area of Pashan.

    But around 10 pm on November 1, 2007, which was the last day of her notice period with the company, she was picked up by the office cab for her night shift. And she did not return. Family members made inquiries and confirmed that she had not worked that night. On the morning of November 2, her brother-in-law lodged a missing complaint with the Chatushrungi police.

    Police found her body the same morning at Gahunje, about 35 km from Pune. There were cut marks on a vein on her right hand and wounds from strangulation on her body. Medical reports confirmed she was raped before her murder.

    Her sister reported that Jyotikumari’s Bangalore-based friend was unable to talk to her after a call made during the cab ride was abruptly disconnected the previous night. Police then arrested the cab driver, Purushottam Borate (31), and his friend Pradeep Yashwant Kokate (25).

    As per the police investigation, instead of taking Jyotikumari to her workplace, the duo drove her along another route on the pretext of picking up someone from the Nigdi area. They allegedly stopped at an isolated place, forcibly switched off her phone, took turns to rape her and strangled her. The investigation also revealed that they went for the other pick-up afterwards.

    Though trial in the case began before a Pune court, it suffered a setback after the arrest of an alleged fake lawyer, Mahendra Kawachale, who represented the accused. By the time he was replaced by another lawyer, Atul Patil, Kawachale had already cross-examined some prosecution witnesses.

    The prosecution had sought capital punishment for the accused. It submitted that the victim was strangled with a dupatta, her bones were fractured, her head was smashed against a stone causing a skull fracture and her wrist was slashed with a blade.

    In March 2012, the Pune district and sessions court sentenced the two accused to death for the rape and murder of the Wipro employee. The court held that the collective conscience of the community was so shocked by the crime that life imprisonment would not meet the ends of justice.

    The sentence was upheld by the Bombay High Court in September 2012 and the Supreme Court in May 2015. Maharashtra Governor C Vidyasagar Rao rejected their mercy petitions in April 2016. About a year later, President Pranab Mukherjee too rejected their mercy pleas.

    Two years later, in April 2019, the Pune principal district and sessions judge issued death warrants for Borate and Kokade. As per the warrants, they were to be hanged by the neck until their death at Yerwada Central Prison in Pune at 5 am on June 24, 2019.

    However, the duo moved the high court against the death warrants. They sought commutation of the death sentences to life imprisonment claiming an “inordinate” and “unexplained” delay of about four years (1,509 days) in executing the death penalty after the Supreme Court verdict, causing violation of their fundamental rights to life. The central and state governments argued there was no delay in taking a decision on the duo’s death penalty.

    But in July 2019, the high court ruled in favour of the accused and commuted their death sentences to imprisonment for 35 years each. A petition filed by the prison department against the order is pending before the apex court. Also, the Maharashtra State Women’s Commission has written to the Supreme Court seeking the death penalty for the two accused.

    Jyotikumari’s family was left in pain by the decision. “It was a heinous crime. The death penalty was upheld by the Supreme Court. The mercy petitions of the accused were rejected by the President of India. It was shocking that the high court commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment. We felt that justice was denied….. My wife had written to the then chief minister hoping that the government would do something to ensure that the accused are given the death penalty. We are not sure what the government did further. We did get to know that Maharashtra State Women’s Commission had written to the Chief Justice of India seeking death for the two accused,” said Gaur Sunder Prasad, brother-in -law of Jyotikumari.

    https://indianexpress.com/article/ci...elief-8695929/
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  4. #214
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    AG recommends setting panel to review if execution by hanging proportionate

    Attorney General R Venkataramani has written to the Centre on setting up a committee of experts to examine the prevalent mode of execution of death row convicts by hanging in the country, the Supreme Court was apprised on Tuesday.

    A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was told by senior advocate Sonia Mathur, appearing for the Centre, that a letter has been written by the attorney general for India to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on setting up of the panel and seeking its suggestions to be submitted in the court on the issue.

    Mathur also said that the topmost law officer was unavailable and travelling and hence the hearing may be deferred. List it on a Friday after two weeks, the CJI said.

    Earlier, the top court was apprised by the Centre that it was considering setting up a committee of experts to examine the prevalent mode of execution of death row convicts by hanging.

    The attorney general had said there were processes related to finalisation of names for the proposed panel and that he will be able to respond on the issue after some time.

    The learned Attorney General states that the process of appointing a committee was under consideration. In view of the above, we will give a fixed date after the (summer) vacation, the bench had said.

    The top court on March 21 had said it may consider setting up of a committee of experts to examine whether execution of death row convicts by hanging was proportionate and less painful and had sought "better data" from the Centre on issues pertaining to the mode of execution.

    Lawyer Rishi Malhotra had filed a PIL in 2017 seeking to abolish the present practice of executing a death row convict by hanging and replace it with less painful methods such as "intravenous lethal injection, shooting, electrocution or gas chamber".
    Malhotra had said that when a convict is hanged, his dignity stood lost which even in death is necessary and gave illustrations of other countries where other modes of execution are being followed.

    Thirty-six states in the US have already abandoned the practice of executing convicts by hanging, he had said.

    https://www.business-standard.com/in...2500248_1.html
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  5. #215
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Rathi murder convict, out after 25 yrs on death row, held for smuggling opium

    Indian Express

    Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary (41), who was sentenced to death for the murder of seven people and released from prison in March this year, was again arrested by Pimpri-Chinchwad police on charges of smuggling opium.

    In a chilling case in 1994, Chaudhary had murdered six members of Pune’s Rathi family and their maid, and was released from prison after 28 years on grounds that he was a 12-year-old at the time of the crime.

    On August 26 in 1994, three persons armed with knives had entered the Rathi family house in Kothrud, Pune, and brutally killed six members of complainant Sanjay Rathi’s family including his mother, his pregnant wife. his two sisters, his three-year-old son, 18-month old nephew, and the maid. A probe had revealed that all of them were all killed one by one by “inflicting numerous knife blows”.

    Chaudhary and two others, Rajusingh Rajpurohit and Jitu Nayansingh Gehlot, were charged for dacoity and murder in the case, as Rajpurohit turned approver. The trial court in Pune in 1998 awarded them the death penalty, which was upheld by HC in 1999, and Supreme Court in 2000. Gehlot’s mercy petition was rejected, he is still on death row at Yerawada Central Jail.

    Five years ago with the help of advocacy group Project 39A, Chaudhary had moved SC which ruled that he ‘be set free forthwith’ as he was a juvenile in 1998.

    A team from Wakad police station on September 2, intercepted a suspect near Pune-Mumbai highway. Upon search, police recovered 898 gm opium worth Rs 3.6 lakh from the suspect. He was arrested and identified as Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary (41) from Bikaner district, Rajasthan.

    Deputy Commissioner of Police Kakasaheb Dole said, “Our probe suggests that after his release, he came in contact with Sugnaram, at whose behest Chaudhary smuggled the contraband to Pune. Narayan has been remanded to police custody till September 6.”

    https://indianexpress.com/article/ci...opium-8924818/
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  6. #216
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Bhopal: Murder Convict Escapes From Hamidia Hospital, Two Constables Suspended

    A death row convict in a murder case managed to escape from the police custody. The incident happened when the accused, escorted by two constables, was taken to the Hamidia hospital for treatment.

    He was incarcerated at the Bhopal central jail and had some health issues. He told the cops that he wanted to visit the washroom. He then sneaked out of the washroom by breaking the window.

    Since he did not return for long, the two constables informed the headquarters and a search operation was launched to track down him. Two constables who had been entrusted with the convict’s responsibility have been suspended, the police added.

    Khajuri police station house officer (SHO) Neeraj Verma said the accused has been identified as Rajat Saini (26). Saini, a native resident of Raghavgarh, was convicted and sentenced to death for his involvement in murder of his friend last year.

    The court pronounced him guilty and awarded the death penalty for the crime. A case had been registered against him at the Khajuri Sadak police station.

    https://www.freepressjournal.in/bhop...bles-suspended
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  7. #217
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    8 Navy Veterans Sentenced To Death In Qatar: They Commanded Warships

    By Vishnu Som
    NDTV

    New Delhi: Eight former Indian Navy officers, who have been sentenced to death in Qatar, have been accused of spying for Israel. The eight men were working for a private firm that helped the Qatari armed forces and included decorated officers who once commanded Indian warships.

    In August 2022, the retired officers were arrested on charges of spying and were accused of espionage and state-sponsored terrorism. According to reports, the eight men were spying for Qatar on a secret naval project.

    The convicted men are Captain Navtej Singh Gill, Captain Birendra Kumar Verma, Captain Saurabh Vasisht, Commander Amit Nagpal, Commander Purnendu Tiwari, Commander Sugunakar Pakala, Commander Sanjeev Gupta and Sailor Ragesh Gopakumar. They worked for a private firm, Dahra Global Technologies and Consultancy Services, which provided training and other services for Qatar's armed forces.

    In a statement, the Ministry of External Affairs said it was shocked by the verdict and would take up the issue with Qatari authorities.

    Award-Winning Commander

    The men, who were arrested in Doha last year, have been accused of spying on Qatar's advanced submarines for Israel. These submarines were coated with special materials that enhanced their stealth capabilities, something that would be valuable for any navy in the world.

    According to reports, the submarines were being built in collaboration with an Italian shipbuilding firm.

    In 2019, Commander Purnendu Tiwari was awarded the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman, the highest honour conferred on overseas Indians. In a post at the time, the Indian Embassy in Doha had said the award was given to Commander Tiwari for enhancing India's image abroad.

    "The award is in recognition of his contribution towards capacity building for the Qatar Emiri Naval Forces, thereby promoting India-Qatar bilateral cooperation. He is the first Indian Armed Forces personnel to be awarded this highest honour meant for NRIs / PIOs," the embassy had said.

    Commander Tiwari was the Managing Director of Dahra Global Technologies and Consultancy Services and had commanded several warships when he was part of the Indian Navy.

    'Exploring All Options'

    Bail petitions of the eight men had been rejected several times and the verdict against them was pronounced on Thursday by the Court of First Instance in Qatar.

    Reacting to the verdict, the Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement, "We are deeply shocked by the verdict of death penalty and are awaiting the detailed judgement. We are in touch with the family members and the legal team, and we are exploring all legal options."

    "We attach high importance to this case, and have been following it closely. We will continue to extend all consular and legal assistance. We will also take up the verdict with Qatari authorities," it added.

    https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/deat...israel-4516400
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •