DeathReserved

Recommendations

Info

Death reserved for the poor Ram Deo Prasad by observing as under. “The Respondent has not preferred an appeal, understandably because he could challenge the findings upon which the orders of conviction and sentence are based as if he had preferred an appeal”. The Supreme Court rightly did not accept the above view of the High Court. It observed: “In our view, the High Court, attributed to the Appellant, knowledge of law and the court procedure for which there does not appear to be any basis. To our mind, the Appellant filed no appeal before the High Court either because of the lack of resources or because he did not fully realize the gravity of his position and we are unable to accept the view taken by the High Court for the Appellant filing no appeal against the judgment of the trial court giving him the death penalty.” In the Supreme Corut, Ram Deo Prasad was represented by an amicus curiae. 85 Case 5: Bishnu Prasad Sinha and Putul Bora, Assam On 12 July 2002, Bishnu Prasad Sinha and Putul Bora were accused of rape and murder of a minor girl, one Barnali Deb @ Poppy in Guwahati, Assam. On conviction, the trial court sentenced them to death, which was confirmed by the Guwahati High Court. On 16 January 2007, a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices S. B. Sinha and Markandey Katju commuted their death sentence to life imprisonment. The appellants were represented by amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court. While commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment, the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling held that death sentences should not be given if the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence .The Court stated “[o]rdinarily, this Court, having regard to the nature of the offence, would not have differed with the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court in this behalf, but it must be borne in mind that the appellants are convicted only on the basis 85. Ram Deo Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 2013(5)SCALE544 17
Death reserved for the poor of the circumstantial evidence. There are authorities for the proposition that if the evidence is proved by circumstantial evidence, ordinarily, death penalty would not be awarded………….” 86 Case 6: A. Devendran, Tamil Nadu On 21 October 1997, a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices G. N. Ray and G. B. Pattanaik commuted the death sentence of appellant A. Devendran to life imprisonment. On 14 July 1995, A. Devendran was sentenced to death by the trial court in Sessions Case No. 91 of 1994 for committing murders in Tamil Nadu on 24 November 1992. On 31 October 1995, the High Court of Madras upheld the death sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 717 of 1995. A. Devendra was represented by amicus curiae in the Supreme Court. 87 Case 7: Bantu @ Naresh Giri, Madhya Pradesh On 17 October 2001, a division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices M. B. Shah and Doraiswamy Raju commuted the death sentence of Bantu @ Naresh to life imprisonment. Bantu was convicted for the rape and murder of a six-year old girl, Jyoti in Umaria district, Madhya Pradesh in January 1999. The trial court had awarded death sentence to Bantu under Sections 302 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. On 19 March 2001, the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh confirmed the death sentence awarded to the appellant Bantu @ Naresh by the trial court. The appellant was represented by an amicus curiae in the Supreme Court. 88 Case 8: Brij Mohan, Gulla and Barchia, Rajasthan Brij Mohan, Gulla and Barchia were sentenced to death by the trial court for the murder of four persons while commiting dacoity at a village in Dausa district, Rajasthan in October 1983. The High Court of Rajasthan confirmed the death sentence against each of the three appellants. On 16 October 1993, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction but the sentence of death was substituted by imprisonment for life. Amicus curiae R. K. Garg represented the appellant before the Supreme Court. 89 86. Appeal (crl.) 453 of 2006 decided on 16 January 2007 87. A. Deivendran Vs. State of T.N, (1997)11SCC720 88. Bantu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008)11SCC113 89. Brij Mohan and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1994) 1 SCC 413 18
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 and 20: Death reserved for the poor Chauhan
Page 21: Death reserved for the poor through
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?