DeathReserved

Recommendations

Info

Death reserved for the poor of death was confirmed by the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court in March 1995 and December 1995 respectively. Initially, the Supreme Court appointed an amicus curiae to represent Ravji’s case. Later on, Ravji wrote a letter to the Registry of the Supreme Court expressing his intention that one of the three advocates mentioned by him in his letter may be engaged to represent his case. Pursuant to the request, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court agreed to appear as an amicus curiae for him. 80 The President rejected his mercy plea and he was executed in 1997. In Santosh Kumar Satishbhusan Bariyar vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court declared the decision in of Ravji’s case as per incuriam in 1999. 81 3.2. Death sentences defended by amicus curiae and commuted by the Supreme Court Case 1: Haru Ghosh, West Bengal On 27 August 2009, a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice V. S. Sirpurkar and Justice Deepak Verma commuted the death sentence of Haru Ghosh, appellant to life imprisonment for a period not to be less than 35 years of actual jail sentence. On 7 May 2005, Haru Ghosh killed a 30-year-old woman Anima Pramanik and her 12-year-old son Shubhankar Pramanik alias Kebal in broad daylight in West Bengal. Haru Ghosh also tried to kill a 60-year-old man, Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty. On conviction, the trial court sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the High Court. An amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court, represented the appellant Haru Ghosh. 82 Case 2: Mulla and Guddu, Uttar Pradesh On 21 December 1995, five persons, Hari Kumar Tripathi, Nanhakey, Ram Kishore @ Chottakey Naney, Chhotakkey and Ganga Dai were kidnapped by armed miscreants and later killed in Sitapur district of Uttar Pradesh. On 30 April 2005, the trial Court convicted Mulla and Guddu under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to death. Challenging the trial court judgment, Guddu filed Criminal Appeal (No. 698 of 2005) and Mulla filed Criminal Appeal (No. 701 of 2005) before the High Court from Jail and both of them jointly filed Criminal Appeal (No. 713 of 2005) 80. Ravji alias Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1996 AIR 787 81. See the judgment at: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=34632 82. Haru Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, (2009)15SCC551 15
Death reserved for the poor through counsel. On 3 March 2006, the High Court dismissed their appeals and confirmed the death sentence. On 8 February 2010, a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice H. L. Dattu confirmed the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment extending to their full life, subject to any remission by the Government for good reasons. The Supreme Court noted that the appellants, Mulla and Guddu belong to extreme poor background and were represented by amicus curiae Ms. Ranjana Narayan at the trial court, high court and the Supreme Court. 83 Case 3: Purna Chandra Kusal, Orissa On 14 November 2002, Purna Chandra alias Chotu of Orissa was accused of rape and murder of a girl. The trial court convicted the accused and awarded death penalty and the sentence was confirmed by the High Court of Orissa. On 12 July 2011, a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra affirmed the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The appellant was represented by amicus curiae. 84 Case 4: Ram Deo Prasad, Bihar In September 2008, Ram Deo Prasad was awarded death penalty by the trial court for the rape and murder of a four year old, Laila Khatoon in Siwan district of Bihar on 20 December 2004. The Patna High Court confirmed the death sentence on 17 September 2009. On 11 April 2013, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. While commuting the sentence, the division bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai noted that Ram Deo Prasad “did not have sufficient resources to engage a lawyer of his own choice and get himself defended up to his satisfaction” and further observed that these “facts and circumstances are also relevant factors to be taken into consideration while confirming the death penalty given to an accused”. Ram Deo Prasad was represented before the trial court by a lawyer appointed by the trial court from the panel of advocates for undefended accused. Despite facing death penalty, he could not file an appeal before the High Court. However, the High Court while accepting the death reference made by the trial court had brushed aside the fact that no appeal was filed by 83. Mulla and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010)3SCC508 84. Purna Chandra Kusal Vs. State of Orissa, 2012CriLJ615 16
Page 2 and 3: Death Reserved for the Poor Asian C
Page 4: Contents 1. Executive summary......
Page 7 and 8: Death reserved for the poor Koli be
Page 9 and 10: Death reserved for the poor Court o
Page 11 and 12: Death reserved for the poor “this
Page 13 and 14: Death reserved for the poor Singh P
Page 15 and 16: Death reserved for the poor 27 Febr
Page 17 and 18: Death reserved for the poor Case 8:
Page 19: Death reserved for the poor Chauhan
Page 23 and 24: Death reserved for the poor of the
Page 25 and 26: Death reserved for the poor sentenc
Page 27 and 28: Death reserved for the poor A Divis
Page 29 and 30: Death reserved for the poor Thereaf
Page 31 and 32: Death reserved for the poor by the
Page 33 and 34: Death reserved for the poor the inf

DeathReserved

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?