64 Pro Death Penalty Quotes by Judges from Asian Countries



The qualities that one should look for in a judge are a burning desire to be fair and impartial; the courage to uphold the law and strike down injustice; compassion, coupled with an understanding of human frailties; and lastly, love for the law. ["A giant of S'pore legal history". The Straits Times. June 6, 2005.]

I hope the day will never come when the guilt or innocence of anyone in Singapore is decided by politics. Your guilt or innocence on this charge is decided by the law of the land, by the courts and by the judges. No one, least of all a politician, is above the law. The law is enacted by Parliament.

Section 3 of the Kidnapping Act provides Judges with the discretion to impose either life imprisonment and caning or the death penalty. A general observation from the reported kidnapping cases is that the death penalty has almost never been imposed.  In Sia Ah Kew and Others v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal substituted the death sentence imposed in the High Court with life imprisonment and caning for an offence of kidnapping. The Court rejected the view of the trial Judges that “the alternative sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed only when there are some very exceptional circumstances which do not justify the imposition of the death sentence” as erroneous. Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin explained:


It is a long and well established principle of sentencing that the Legislature in fixing the maximum penalty for a criminal offence intends it only for the worst cases. However, in the case of kidnapping for ransom the discretion given to the courts as regards the sentence is, as earlier stated, very limited in scope. In our opinion the maximum sentence … would be appropriate where the manner of the kidnapping or the acts or conduct of the kidnappers are such as to outrage the feelings of the community.

Wee Chong Jin (Chinese: 黄宗仁; pinyin: Huáng Zōng Rén; 28 September 1917 – 5 June 2005) was a Singaporean judge and the first Chief Justice of the country.

''Courts must remember not just rights of the criminal but also the victims,'' he said, sentencing gunman Ajmal Amir Kasab to death on five counts.

He quoted extensively from Supreme Court judgments, views expressed by experts on jurisprudence and law reports to say why it was a must to put a terrorist like Kasab to death. ''If we want to enjoy an effective system of law then the punishment we give must be proportional to the crime,'' Tahaliyani observed.

The judge drew attention to the fact that Kasab's crimes, especially the murder of women and children, spoke of his extreme depravity. ''There was neither remorse nor repentance on his part. It is a fit case for death,'' he said.

M L Tahaliyani A.K.A Madanlal Laxmandas Tahaliyani (born on 23 December 1953 in Sardar Shahar, District Churu, Rajasthan, India) is an Indian High Court judge in Bombay, India. Justice Tahaliyani hails from Gondia district in Maharashtra. He completed his Law degree from Nagpur. He was also the judge in the infamous Gulshan Kumar murder case. Coincidentally, Special Public Prosecutor in the 26/11 case, Ujjwal Nikam, was the prosecutor and Abbas Kazmi was the defence lawyer in that case. Tahiliyani was also a special judge assigned to handle CBI cases. In 1987, he became the magistrate at the Bandra Metropolitan Court; he was appointed as Additional Sessions judge in the Mumbai Sessions Court in 1997. In 2009, Tahiliyani was appointed as the judge in the 26/11 trial. Dedicated judge he is, Tahiliyani along with his staff worked through the Diwali vacations and didn't take time off even when there were no court hearings. He would come to finish even the administration work related to the case.

Friday 13 August 2010 - For Chief Justice Shehab al Hammadi, a courtroom is set up for a single purpose: for the accused to present their best defence.


Even the gavel is a symbol of coercion, he said, and does not belong in his courtroom. Chief Justice al Hammadi, who presides over all state security cases at the Federal Supreme Court, says it is the judge's responsibility to ensure defendants believe in the system. "The basic principle that governs the relationship between a defendant and a judge is that the defendant should be fully confident he or she is arraigned before a fair trial and a court of law," Chief Justice al Hammadi said in a rare interview. "The defendant should also be confident the judge is an independent judge, who does not represent any party, and that the court derives its decisions from the constitution."

"Ignorance breeds injustices; a judge may want to be just, but because he is not aware of all aspects of the law, he judges wrongly. Knowledge, when combined with fairness, leads to justice."

Chief Justice Shehab al Hammadi was born in 1963 in Khor Fakkan, Sharjah. He has been a judge since 1985. He worked as a judge at the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Arab States between 2001 and 2003, and was head of the tribunal in 2003.

Chief Justice Ramesh Chandra Lahoti on 31 October 2005, his last day in office, justifying death penalty and referring to Delhi blasts on 29 October 2005, said "What other penalty would suit perpetrators of such brutal acts? What other penalty is called for if the crime is proved beyond reasonable doubt? What happens is that, we forget the past. We see only the face of the accused, who is before us and his family. We forget the victims and their families."

 

Ramesh Chandra Lahoti (born November 1, 1940) was the 35th Chief Justice of India, serving from June 1, 2004 to November 1, 2005. He joined the Bar in Guna District in 1960 and enrolled as an advocate in 1962. In April 1977, he was recruited directly from the Bar to the State Higher Judicial Service and was appointed as a District and Sessions Judge. After functioning as a District and Sessions Judge for a year, he resigned in May 1978 and reverted to the Bar for practice mainly in the High Court. He was appointed the Additional Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on May 3, 1988 and made permanent judge on August 4, 1989. Lahoti was transferred to Delhi High Court on February 7, 1994. He was appointed as a Judge of Supreme Court of India on December 9, 1998. He retired on his 65th birthday giving him a term of 18 months. His predecessor had a term of just 1 month. Justice Lahoti, a noted jurist is economic with words and probably the least vocal among Chief Justices. He served one of the longest terms as Chief Justice in recent years, retiring from office after 17 months.


On Monday 21 February 2011, a division bench of Justice Ranjana Desai and Justice R.V. More delivered the verdict, holding him guilty on four counts. Kasab now has 30 days to appeal in the Supreme Court. Two Indian co-accused, alleged to be his accomplices, were let off by the court for lack of evidence.

“The appeal of Kasab has been dismissed and the death sentence has been upheld,” the bench said in its order after nearly four months of hearing. “This is, indeed, a rarest of rare cases involving uncommon and unprecedented crime for which sentence of life imprisonment is inadequate,” the bench said.


“We feel that we would never be as confident as we are today in confirming the death sentence,’ the bench said, justifying the capital punishment awarded to Kasab.

Qasab was one of 10 gunmen who carried out co-ordinated attacks on key Bombay landmarks that included two hotels, the city’s train station and a Jewish centre, besieging them for nearly three days. The gunmen had arrived by sea from near the southern Pakistani city of Karachi. Within hours, Qasab was captured by the train station’s close circuit television firing casually from an AK47 assault rifle at groups of terrified passengers, including women and children.

“The case was of extreme brutality. The crime was enormous and pre-planned. It was a threat to society,” judges Ranjana Desai and Ranjit More said in their order confirming the death penalty.

“Qasab killed innocent people mercilessly. He never showed any remorse,” the judges declared.

Ranjana Desai was born on 30.10.1949. She completed her graduation from the Elphinstone College Bombay in April 1970 with Economics & Politics as subjects. She took her law degree from Government Law College Bombay in April 1973. She was enrolled as an Advocate on 30.07.1973. She handled criminal and civil matters. She worked as a Junior of Justice S.C. Pratap when he was the bar. She was appointed Honorary Assistant Government Pleader in High Court in 1979 and thereafter she was appointed Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor in High Court in 1983. In 1986, she was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor for Preventive Detention matters. From 1st November, 1995 she worked as Government Pleader, Appellate Side, High Court, Bombay. She was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court for a period of 2 years w.e.f. 15.04.1996. She is appointed as Permanent Judge of this Hon'ble Court on 12th April, 1998.

Mr Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Haji Abdullah delivered his judgment after a 13-day hearing at which mother and son were jointly charged with dadah trafficking at the Bayan Lepas international airport here at 5.10pm on Feb 9, 1985.

The Cohens, who are both New Zealand citizens from Auckland, were charged under section 39B of the amended Dangerous Drugs Act, which carries the mandatory death sentence upon conviction.

Mr Justice Mohammed Dzaiddin , in convicting Lorraine, said that section 39B(2) of the Act clearly provided that anyone found guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs shall be punished on conviction with death.

"The rigour of this punishment is too well known and the accused (Lorraine), being no stranger to Malaysia, cannot complain that she did not know the law and the penalty for trafficking. Prior to her arrest, she was in Penang for two months and previous to that she had also visited Singapore and entered Malaysia through the Causeway in Johore Baru.”

"Every visitor who comes to Malaysia must have read the warning boldly stated on the embarkation cards and the billboards at all entry points. Therefore, to say that the warning did not actually explain the meaning of trafficking is no excuse," the judge added.

"Mandatory sentence is one field of the criminal where my function as a judge can be described as 'mechanical' because we judges become the reluctant but obedient servants of the lawmakers as it is ordained that "Thou shall pass only one sentence known to law. Accordingly, I sentence the first accused (Lorraine) to death by hanging,"

Mohamed Dzaiddin bin Haji Abdullah born in Arau, Perlis on 16 September 1937 is a Malaysian judge.

Justice Tay Yong Kwang delivers his judgement before a packed courtroom. He finds Leong Siew Chor guilty of murder and pronounces the death penalty. Leong listens intently, his face impassive as he learns he is to be sent to the gallows.

 

Noting that Leong had butchered his lover after killing her, Justice Tay says: ''It was a most disgusting and despicable murder. Liu Hong Mei died a very cruel, heartbreaking death. In the classic tragic tale of ill-fated love, the luckless lovers committed suicide. Here, Romeo killed Juliet, the accused stole the deceased's heart, then pilfered her card and hard-earned savings and finally robbed her of her life.''

Justice Tay Yong Kwang is a judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He was first appointed Judicial Commissioner in 1997, and appointed Judge in 2003.

In an interview with The Straits Times in 1996, the gruff, no-nonsense man brushed off the 'Hanging Judge' sobriquet, saying his conscience was clear. 'I'm satisfied that I've made no mistake and that I've done my duty according to the law,' he said.

Choor Singh Sidhu (19 January 1911 – 31 March 2009), known professionally as Choor Singh, was a judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore and, particularly after his retirement from the bench, a philanthropist and writer of books about Sikhism. Born to a family of modest means in Punjab, India, he came to Singapore at four years of age. He completed his seondary education in the top class at Raffles Institution in 1929, then worked as a clerk in a law firm before becoming a civil servant in the Official Assignee's office. Encouraged by the Assistant Official Assignee, James Walter Davy Ambrose (who was later appointed a High Court Judge), to study law, Choor Singh enrolled as an external student at the University of London, passing the matriculation examination and intermediate LL.B. examination. In 1948 he was appointed a coroner, and the following year was elevated to the post of magistrate, becoming the first Indian to hold such a position in colonial Malaya. Following law studies at Gray's Inn on a government scholarship, he became a Barrister-at-Law in 1955. He was appointed a district judge in 1960 and a judge of the Supreme Court in 1963. Especially noted for his criminal judgments, Singh was the first Singapore judge to impose the death penalty on a woman. Following his retirement in 1980, Choor Singh continued his close involvement in Indian and Sikh affairs. One of the young Sikhs who founded the Singapore Khalsa Association in 1931, he served as its patron and honorary chairman of its board of trustees. He also contributed to educational charities and causes, both Sikh and non-Sikh, and wrote several books on Sikhism. In 1994, the Sikh community bestowed on him its highest honour by inviting him to lay the foundation stone for the new Gurdwara Sahib building at the Gurdwara Khalsa Dharmak Sabha at 18 Niven Road.

Monday 21 November 2011 - The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by Seiichi Endo, a former senior member of the Aum Supreme Truth cult who was sentenced to death by lower courts for his involvement in four cases, some involving murder, essentially bringing to an end a series of Aum-related trials that lasted more than 16 years.

Endo, a 51-year-old former veterinarian and virologist, is set to become the 13th member of the cult to have a death sentence finalized.

Endo was given the death penalty by lower courts for conspiring with Aum founder Shoko Asahara, whose real name is Chizuo Matsumoto, and playing a central role in the sarin nerve gas attacks in Nagano Prefecture in 1994 and on the Tokyo subway system in 1995.

"The crimes were committed in an organized and systematic manner, to defend the cult and as a challenge to a law-abiding nation," presiding Justice Seishi Kanetsuki of the Supreme Court's No. 1 Petty Bench said in the ruling.

"They were extremely antisocial and showed outrageous disregard for human life. Although he himself was not a perpetrator of the crimes, the criminal responsibility of the defendant, who misused his scientific knowledge in connection with the crimes, was extremely serious," the ruling said.

Seishi Kanetsuki (金築 誠志 Kanetsuki Seishi, born April 1, 1945) is a member of the Supreme Court of Japan. He was appointed Supreme Court's No. 1 Petty Bench on 26 January 2009.

“The act of the accused and his friends, now famous as the Bali Nine, has made a black mark on Bali as a top tourist destination. The sentence for the accused must be equal to his actions. Chan had shown no regret whatsoever; he gave complicated and conflicting evidence; his actions were contrary to government policy aimed at stamping out drugs.” Judge Supratman said, referring to the Bali Nine.    

“A drug dealer’s crime is of the same magnitude as that of a terrorist. It’s just that terrorist’s bomb, like those in the Bali Nightclubs in 2002, killed 202 people in one night – the impact is sudden. The evil effects of drug takes longer to manifest themselves but are just as deadly, and, in many ways, more deadly, as they affect generations to come.” Judge Supratman said, referring to the Bali Nine.    

The Muslim judge, Arif Supratman, read a passage from the Koran: "We already decided for them that, many souls were paid for by souls, eyes paid by eyes, nose by nose, eyes by eyes, tooth by tooth and injured paid by injured. Because of that”, he said, “Samudra would pay with his life.”

Judge Arif Supratman is a Muslim judge from Bali, Indonesia.
The presiding judge, Mohamed Oreibi al-Khalifa, told al-Majid: "You had all the civil and military authority for northern Iraq. You gave orders to the troops to kill Kurdish civilians and put them in severe conditions. You subjected them to wide and systematic attacks using chemical weapons and artillery. You led the killing of villagers. You ... committed genocide. There are enough documents against you."
Judge Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa is a member of the Iraq High Tribunal, which was created to prosecute crimes that occurred under the regime of Saddam Hussein.

On 18 March 2009, the district court found the defendants guilty of all the charges. It sentenced Kanda and Hori to death for the murder of Rie Isogai on 25 August 2007.

Presiding Judge Hiroko Kondo said the motives of the three left no grounds for leniency because "each of the three committed the crime for the purpose of getting some easy money."

"They did not listen to the victim's pleas and carried out the criminal act," Kondo said. "There was no mercy, and it was a chilling act."

Hiroko Kondo 近藤宏子 is a judge in the Nagoya District Court.

Under Article 1 of the penal code, certain offences including murder, sex outside of wedlock, drugs, theft and alcohol must be tried under Sharia.

He said murder and drug trafficking offences can bring the death penalty.

"The death penalty for murder is the original sentence - a judge cannot ignore it," said the official, who did not wish to be named.

"Murder is an issue that has to do with the victim's family, and it is not up to the judge to rule against it unless the family accepts diyya [blood money] or forgives the killer.

"If we do not sentence a killer to death, the victim's family will seek revenge, and that would cause a problem in our society."

As for executing minors, he said, Sharia clearly states when a person becomes an adult.

"The point is to determine when a person is an adult - when he or she can decide what is wrong and what is right," he said.

Saturday 6 August 2011 - Other judges also expressed their faith in the current system. They said crimes such as domestic violence or child abuse were broadly defined under the law, giving a wide range of discretion for punishment and providing judges with the freedom they need to make an appropriate decision.

“Some people walk to crime, while others, the crime comes to them,” one judge said.

Saturday 6 August 2011 - Another judge said he supported amending the law to make capital punishment mandatory for drug trafficking. “Such crimes destroy nations,” he said.

U.A.E Judges - judges from the United Arab Emirates giving their opinions.

On 13 December 2006, The Osaka District Court sentenced Yuki Yamaji to death. Yukio Yamaji (山地 悠紀夫, Yamaji Yukio, August 21, 1983 – July 28, 2009) was a Japanese triple killer. He murdered his own mother in 2000, and then murdered a 27-year-old woman and her 19-year-old sister in 2005.

"It was a cruel and outrageous crime," presiding Judge Masao Namiki said. "The defendant has not reflected on his crime, and it is unlikely that he will be rehabilitated. His criminal responsibility is too heavy."

"The defendant is dangerous, as he is obsessed with killing people," Namiki said. "The victims were killed in unimaginable fear and pain, and it is inevitable to hand down capital punishment."

Masao Namiki 並木正男 is a judge in the Osaka District Court.
“The law against drug offenses doesn’t contradict the 1945 constitution or break any international laws which Indonesia has signed. Therefore, it is clear that the defendants’ petition does not have solid grounds.”
Jimly Assidiqi is the head judge of the Indonesian Constitutional Court, referring to the Bali Nine.

The measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime, the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state of the victim.

Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals.

Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.

Justices A.S. Anand and N.P. Singh, Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee

N.P.SINGH Mr. Justice N.P. Singh, Born on 25th December, 1931. Enrolled as an Advocate on 9th January, 1956; Appointed as the Judge of the Patna High Court on 12th April, 1973; Became the Acting Chief Justice of Patna High Court in 1991; On 4th February, 1992 took over as Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court; Appointed as the Judge of the Supreme Court on 15th June, 1992. Retired on 24.12.1996.

The measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime, the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state of the victim.

Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals.

Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.

Justices A.S. Anand and N.P. Singh, Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee

DR.JUSTICE ADARSH SEIN ANAND Appointed as Chief Justice of India on 10th October, 1998. Awarded Degree of Doctor of Letters (Honoris Causa) at the 9th Convocation held at Jammu University on March 20, 1999.Retired on 01.11.2001

Referring to the death sentence upheld for Umesh Reddy on 2 February 2011 - “The extreme depravity with which the offences were committed and the merciless manner in which death was inflicted brings it [the crime] within the category of rarest of rare which merits the death penalty.”

Asking the government not to keep mercy petitions of death row convicts pending for a long time, Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir on Sunday said execution of death penalty should not be delayed. He also faulted the government for not informing Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru's family members before he was hanged.


"If a death penalty is to be awarded and it is there under the system, then the quicker things are done the better it is for everybody," Justice Kabir said at a press conference with law minister Ashwani Kumar after a meeting of chief ministers and chief justices of high courts on judicial reforms.

Altamas Kabir M.A.,LL.B. - was born on July 19, 1948. He was enrolled as an Advocate in 1973 and practiced in the District Court and the Calcutta High Court in Civil and Criminal sides. He was appointed as a permanent Judge in the Calcutta High Court on August 6, 1990. He was thereafter appointed as a Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court on 1.3.2005. Appointed as a Judge, Supreme Court of India on September 9, 2005. Due to retire on July 19, 2013(F.N.)

Criticizing people and groups advocating abolition of death penalty, he said: “It may be added some groups have been advocating abolition of the capital punishment. It seems that the persons leading these groups are living in ivory towers and have never been touched by such crimes committed on the ordinary citizens. The victim is not there to tell the agony of pain he or she suffers. In the present case, there is no other alternative but to award the above proposed punishment”. [Saturday 12 May 2012] 

Sh. Kewal Krishan Garg is the District & Sessions Judge of Gurdaspur, Punjab. He joined the court on 6 April 2010.

"There are strict protocols, checks and balances to executions," he said. "We don't just execute for petty crimes." He said that even if a country wanted to abolish the death penalty it would be impossible under Shariah. "It is a religious responsibility given to the courts," he said. There are fewer than 70 inmates on death row in Abu Dhabi, according to guards and former inmates of Al Wathba prison.

Chief Justice Syed Abdul Baseer is the head of the criminal court in Abu Dhabi since 2002.

In his trial, prosecutors called Hiroshi Maeue a "lust murderer." On March 28, 2007, the Osaka District Court sentenced him to death. Although his defence team launched an appeal, he accepted the judgment of the court and expressed a willingness to pay for his crimes with his life, retracting his protest in July 5, 2007. On July 28, 2009, Hiroshi Maeue was hanged in Osaka, along with 25-year-old condemned criminal Yukio Yamaji.

"It's brutal, heartless, devilish, and his sexual propensity is deep-rooted and difficult to ameliorate. The cruelty of the serial killings means the unlikelihood that he could be rehabilitated."

Kazuo Mizushima 和夫水島 is a judge in the Osaka District Court.

"In my view, the stage has still not come in India to completely abolish the death penalty like countries in the European Union or the UK have done. For heinous terror crimes and given India's geographical situation and its sensitive neighbourhood, death penalty for terrorists must be on the statute books to act as a deterrent for terrorists. But I am strictly not in favour of death penalty for sexual offences like rape." [Monday 11 February 2013]

V. N. Khare was the 33rd Chief Justice of India, serving from December 19, 2002 to May 2, 2004. He was a judge of the Supreme Court of India from March 21, 1997 before he was elevated to the post of Chief Justice.

“It is not proper for NHRC to give an opinion on death sentence. But, if you ask me personally... I feel personally that the death penalty should continue. It has got a very great deterrent effect on the society.”

“In India, different types of crimes are on increase. The death penalty will have a deterrent effect on the people,” Mr Balakrishnan said.

His remarks come at a time when Pakistani gunman Mohammad Ajmal Kasab, convicted in the Mumbai terror attack, and Afzal Guru, found guilty in Parliament attack, have been awarded death sentences. Over a dozen mercy petitions, including that of Afzal Guru, are pending with the government.

“If you analyse many of those who were given death penalty really deserved it in the cases imposed (on them),” Mr Balakrishnan said.

K.G. Balakrishnan Konakuppakatil Gopinathan Balakrishnan (Malayalam: കൊനകുപ്പക്കാട്ടില്‍ ഗോപിനാഥന്‍ ബാലകൃഷ്ണന്‍, b. 12 May 1945) known as K. G. Balakrishnan, was the thirty-seventh Chief Justice of India.

"It cannot exceed 30 days. As from tomorrow the sentence could be carried out at any time. The appeals court has issued its verdict. What we have decided today is compulsory."

 

Judge Arif Shaheen one of the nine Iraqi appeal judges in the Saddam Hussein trial.

Wednesday 4 July 2012 - Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussain has stressed that the death penalty is not something new to the Maldives and can be enforced within the current legal system.


Speaking to reporters after the minute of silence observed by members of the judiciary and lawyers in memory of lawyer Ahmed Najeeb who was stabbed to death last Sunday, Faiz detailed that according to the statistics of the last decade; more than ten people had been sentenced to death.


As the Maldives’ judicial system is meshed with Islamic Shariah, implementing the death penalty was possible even in the present legal system.


“The justice system in the Maldives is shaped in a way that following a court verdict, the sentence or the punishment is enforced by a separate entity. The result of a verdict can only been seen if the sentences are enforced. This doesn’t apply only to the death penalty,” Chief Justice added.

While most murder cases have been delayed, three hearings on Najeeb’s case have already taken place on the same day the case had been forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s office upon completion of the investigation.


Chief Justice admitted that the case in question had been different and noted that the investigation had received the full cooperation of all relevant authorities. He also highlighted that the process of forwarding the case to the PG’s office had been smooth and without any glitches.


He explained that several reasons were behind the alarming rise in criminal offences. He detailed that the only solution is to strengthen the constitution, the justice system and to complete the much needed laws to the judicial system.


“Once the constitution came into effect, there are some important tools needed for the Judiciary for it to function effectively. Parliament members are currently working on bills such the criminal procedural act, penal code and evidence act. When these Bills are ratified the justice system would be more complete and the crime rate would be curbed,” Faiz detailed.

“The Maldives judicial system is constructed in a manner whereby another body is responsible to enforce the punishment once it is decided by the court,” Faiz explained. “Not only in murder cases, but if all court verdicts on all crimes are properly enforced,  we will see the [positive] outcomes of these verdicts,” the Supreme court judge noted.

Ahmed Faiz was born H. dh. Vaikaradhoo to Island Chief (Katheeb) Hussain Ali and Fathimath Yusuf. He is the second eldest one in the Family. Spent most of his time studying in Pakistan. After several of years of his services in Government, in year 2010 President Mohamed Nasheed appointed him as Chief Justice of newly established permanent supreme court with the approval of parliament, according to reformed constitution.
“Criticism from outside is expected, but Indonesian courts will only adhere to the laws applied in this country, and that includes the death penalty. The judges will not budge, we will not be affected by public opinion or the media.” 

Yasa said that, rather than interfering in Indonesia's justice system, Australia should educate its citizens about the strict drug laws in neighbouring countries, before allowing them to travel abroad.

I Wayan Yasa Abadhi Denpasar District Court judge and spokesman I Wayan Yasa Abadhi

Ahmed Ibrahim Saif, Chief Justice of the Dubai Criminal Court, said judges were not overusing or underusing capital punishment. “The law made it mandatory that a panel of three judges agree to give the death penalty, because it’s a person’s life they are determining to end or keep,” he said. (Saturday 6 April 2011)

Ahmad Ebrahim Saif is the Chief Justice of the Dubai Criminal Courts.

EXPLAINING reasons and instances that could justify capital punishment, the Supreme Court on Friday 12 April 2013, asserted that it was a change in the crime situation across the globe that quelled the voices for abolition of the death penalty.

 

Despite several judicial verdicts over constitutionality of the death sentence, a Bench led by Justice G S Singhvi noted that jurists and human right activists persisted with their demand for abolition of death penalty and made attempts to persuade the Centre to take steps for its abolition.

 

"It is a different story that they have not succeeded because in recent years the crime scenario has changed all over the world. While there is no abatement in crimes committed due to personal animosity and property disputes, people across the world have suffered on account of new forms of crimes," said the court.

 

While dismissing an appeal by Khalistani terrorist Devinderpal Singh Bhullar for commutation of his death penalty to life term on ground of delay in deciding his mercy plea, the court pointed that the “monster of terrorism" had spread its tentacles in most of the countries of the world.

 

"India is one of the worst victims of internal and external terrorism. In the last three decades, hundreds of innocent lives have been lost on account of the activities of terrorists, who have mercilessly killed people by using bullets, bombs and other modern weapons," said the court while citing excerpts from its 1994 judgment on upholding the constitutional validity of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).

 

Referring to catena of judicial pronouncements, the apex court said "the votaries of ‘no capital punishment" could not succeed in getting the death sentence removed from the statute book as neither the Parliament nor the Law Commission assented to the abolition.

 

"If the murder is committed in an extremely brutal or dastardly manner, which gives rise to intense and extreme indignation in the community, the Court may be fully justified in awarding the death penalty. If the murder is committed by burning the bride for the sake of money or satisfaction of other kinds of greed, there will be ample justification for awarding the death penalty. If the enormity of the crime is such that a large number of innocent people are killed without rhyme or reason then too, award of extreme penalty of death will be justified," it said.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that long delay in deciding the mercy plea of a terror convict cannot be the ground for granting commutation of death penalty to life sentence, putting terrorism on the top of a hierarchy of "rarest-of-rare" crimes which attract capital punishment.

 

"Terrorism stands on an altogether different plane and cannot be compared with murders committed due to personal animosity or over property and personal disputes," Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Muhopadhyaya said as they turned down the plea of Khalistani terrorist Devender Pal Singh Bhullar.

The judges also said the change in the crime scenario exemplified by rise of terrorism was the main reason why death sentence has remained in the statute book and abolitionist have failed to make headway, scoffing at efforts to secure relief for terror convicts by human rights activists.

 

"It is paradoxical that the people who do not show any mercy or compassion for others plead for mercy and project delay as a ground for commutation of the sentence of death. Many others join the bandwagon to espouse the cause of terrorists involved in the gruesome killing and mass murder of innocent civilians and raise the bogey of human rights," the court said.

 

The bench further said, "While doing so, they (the terrorists) do not show any respect for human lives. Before killing the victims, they do not think even for a second about the parents, wives, children and other near and dear ones of the victims. The families of those killed suffer agony for their entire life, apart from financial and other losses."

Saying that the crime scenario had changed globally, Justices Singhvi and Mukhopadhya said, "While there is no abatement in the crimes committed due to personal animosity and property disputes, people across the world have suffered on account of new forms of crimes. The monster of terrorism has spread its tentacles in most of the countries. India is one of the worst victims of internal and external terrorism. In the last three decades, hundreds of innocent lives have been lost on account of the activities of terrorists, who have mercilessly killed people by using bullets, bombs and other modern weapons."

G.S. Singhvi (born 12 December 1948) is a judge of the Supreme Court of India. He is due to retire on 11 December 2013.
“Narcotics or drugs kill or destroy human beings. The crime can be categorized as a serious crime. Therefore, it is appropriate that those convicted of this crime receive heavy sentences or the death penalty.”
Judge I Dewa Palguna was born on 24 December 1961 in a remote village of Bangli where ‘there was electricity only from the beginning of the 1990s’. After graduating from the faculty of law at Udayana University majoring in constitutional law, he was recruited as a lecturer at his alma mater. He completed his masters degree in international law at Padjadjaran University in Bandung. Palguna was deeply involved in the clamor of the reform movement in Indonesia, and after the collapse of the New Order regime, he was appointed as one of the five persons representing the Regional Delegation of Bali to the Peoples Consulative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia (MPR). At the same time, he was also recruited as a member of the first ad hoc committee of the Assembly’s working body concerning the amendment of Indonesia’s constitution. In 2003, at the age of 42, he became the youngest to be appointed judge at the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) where he served until 2008. In 2000, a compilation of his writings covering a wide range of issues has been published under the title Parlmen Litere (Bali Mangsi Press). His other writings Mahkamah Konstitusi, Judicial Review, dan Welfare State, Nationalisme: Identitas & Kegelisahan, Saya sungguh Mencemaskan Bali have been published by Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Currently, he is a Ph.D candidate at the Indonesia University, and has returned to his position as lecturer at the Udayana University.

On 7 April 2005 - Presiding Justice Niro Shimada rejected Kazuaki Okazaki's appeal, saying: "The crimes were organized, carefully planned, ruthless and brutal. The defendant's criminal responsibility is extremely serious due to his aggressive participation in the killing of the people as a senior member of the cult."

"Even though he surrendered to police and he prayed for the souls of the victims, his criminal responsibility is extremely serious," Judge Niro Shimada said of Okazaki. "The death sentence cannot be helped."

Niro Shimada (島田 仁郎, Shimada Nirō, born November 22, 1938) was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Japan. Born in Tokyo, he attended the University of Tokyo, graduating with an LL.B. and passing the bar examination in 1962. He was appointed as an assistant judge in 1964 and rotated through the criminal divisions of the Tokyo and Nagoya District Courts and of the Supreme Court. He obtained an MPhil from the University of London in 1968. He served as on the Osaka District Court (1974-77), as a lecturer at the Legal Research and Training Institute (1977-81), on the Tokyo District Court (1981-82; 1986-89), in the criminal division of the Supreme Court (1983-86; 1989-94), as chief judge of the Utsunomiya District Court (1994-96), as chief judge of the Urawa District Court (1996-98), as head of the Legal Research and Training Institute (1999-2001), as chief judge of the Sendai High Court (2001-02) and as chief judge of the Osaka High Court (2002). He was appointed to the Supreme Court on November 7, 2002 and became Chief Justice on October 16, 2006. Hironobu Takesaki replaced Niro Shimada when November 21, 2008, the date of Shimada's mandatory retirement, came.

Tuesday 10 May 2011 - India's Supreme Court says people convicted of so-called honour killings should face the death penalty.

"It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation," the court said.

"All persons who are planning to perpetrate 'honour' killings should know that the gallows await them," said Justices Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra.

"He cannot take the law into his own hands by committing violence or giving threats of violence.”

Tuesday 10 May 2011 – "In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving the death punishment."

Tuesday 14 September 2011 - NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that that the presence of death penalty in the statute book means that it can be imposed in heinous and gruesome murder cases, such as those relating to honour killing, dowry death, fake encounters and hired killings.

This ruling was handed down by a bench of Justices Markandey Katju and C K Prasad while upholding death penalty to one Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral who killed his wife and three grown-up children in Mumbai in April 2003.

The death sentence coincides with a renewed debate on death penalty in the wake of efforts to whip up resistance to the impending hanging of death row convicts: from those held guilty of assassinating former PM Rajiv Gandhi to Khalistani terrorist Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar to Parliament attack plotter Afzal Guru. The court noted that globally the movement was away from death penalty, but said that the judiciary cannot stop using the capital punishment for "rarest of rare" cases so long as it was provided for under the law.

The bench held that the court's failure to impose capital punishment for heinous crimes falling in the rarest of rare category would amount to "repeal of death penalty by the judiciary".

Gujral had a fight with his wife, as they routinely did every day, in the dead of the night at his Sher-e-Punjab colony in Andheri on April 9-10, 2003. Enraged, he poured gallons of petrol on all four and set them on fire before fleeing. He was caught in Madanganj in Ajmer district, Rajasthan, four days later.

Discussing a whole gamut of Supreme Court judgments dealing with death penalty and laying down the rarest of rare category guidelines, Justice Katju said: "In our opinion this is one of such cases. Burning living persons to death is a horrible act which causes excruciating pain to the victim, and this could not have been unknown to Gujral. A person like Gujral who instead of doing his duty of protecting his family kills them in such a cruel and barbaric manner cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. The balance sheet is heavily against him and accordingly we uphold the death sentence awarded to him," the bench said.

 

Markandey Katju is a Kashmiri Brahmin, was born on September 20, 1946. His background is noteworthy because of his family’s achievements in the fields of Law and Politics. Justice Katju is the son of late Justice S.N.Katju, formerly a Judge of the Allahabad High Court. His grandfather Dr.Kailash Nath Katju, was one of India's leading lawyers and participated in the country's freedom movement. Dr. K. N. Katju was the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, the Governor of West Bengal and Orissa, as well as the Union Law, Home and Defence Minister. Justice Katju's uncle, Justice B.N.Katju, was the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court. Justice Markandey Katju topped the merit list of the Allahabad University's LLB examination of 1968. Thereafter, he practiced law in the Allahabad High Court specializing in Labour Law, Taxation and Writ Petitions. Justice Katju is keenly interested in academics, and has a wide range of interests, including Sanskrit, Urdu, History, Philosophy, Science, Sociology etc., apart from his interest in Jurisprudence. Katju was appointed as a judge of the Allahabad High Court in 1991, as its Acting Chief Justice in August 2004, as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court in November 2004, and as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court in October 2005. He was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court of India in April 2006.

Tuesday 10 May 2011 - India's Supreme Court says people convicted of so-called honour killings should face the death penalty.

"It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation," the court said.

"All persons who are planning to perpetrate 'honour' killings should know that the gallows await them," said Justices Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra.

"He cannot take the law into his own hands by committing violence or giving threats of violence.”

Tuesday 10 May 2011 – "In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving the death punishment."

Gyan Sudha Mishra (born April 28, 1949) is a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India. She was the first woman Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court. Presently, she is the only female Judge of the Supreme Court. Her father Justice Satish Chandra Mishra was a former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. She was appointed a judge of the Patna High Court on 16 March, 1994. Prior to her elevation as the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court on 13 July 2008, she was a judge of the Rajasthan High Court for fifteen years.

Thursday 18 August 2011 - In a landmark judgment, sessions judge, Darjeeling awarded capital punishment to a person named Amar Rai guilty of murder. This is for the first time that capital punishment is being pronounced in the Darjeeling district of West Bengal.

37 year old Rai was found guilty of murdering his own mother Prem Kumari Rai in cold blood. The Sessions Judge convicted Rai for committing offence under Section 302 IPC (murder).

Pronouncing the sentence at around 1:25pm, Subrata Mitra, sessions judge, Darjeeling stated, "It is cold blooded murder and the convict is not repentant for the acts done by him. If we consider the facts, circumstances of this case and the conduct of the accused person then this case can be treated as rarest of the rare cases. The society will lose faith upon the law if lenient view is taken by the Court in the matter of imposing sentence upon the offender of such type of heinous crime. Maximum punishment should be imposed to prevent recurrence of similar offence. Let him be hanged by the neck till he is dead."

Subrata Mitra is the sessions judge of the District and Sessions Court of Darjeeling, West Bengal in India.
"The atrocious murder of four girls to satisfy his sexual desire leaves no room for leniency," 

Chief Justice Tokiyasu Fujita said in January 2006 when Miyazaki’s final appeal was thrown out and the death penalty handed down.
Tokiyasu Fujita (藤田 宙靖 born April 6, 1940) is a member of the Supreme Court of Japan.
“Drugs involved could have yielded 8200 victims. All the people in this world know the danger of narcotic abuse. If the heroin was exported by the accused and circulated in the community, if each person used one grain there would be 8200 human beings who would become victims.”
Judge I Gusti Lanang Duah Judge I Gusti Lanang Duah of Indonesia

On Monday 21 February 2011, a division bench of Justice Ranjana Desai and Justice R.V. More delivered the verdict, holding him guilty on four counts. Kasab now has 30 days to appeal in the Supreme Court. Two Indian co-accused, alleged to be his accomplices, were let off by the court for lack of evidence.

‘The punishment must befit the crime. The punishment must reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The rights of the victims must also be kept in mind. Examined in the light of the settled principles and after drawing the balance sheet, we are of the considered opinion that in this case, the lone mitigating circumstance i.e. young age of Kasab must recede in the background. Even after according maximum weightage to the age factor, we feel that there is no alternative but to confirm the death sentence,’ the bench noted.

It said, ‘In any case, in our short interaction with Kasab through video conferencing, we observed his demeanour. He did not appear to be repentant at all. He was perfectly sane. He was in proper frame of mind.It is the rarest of rare cases. If he is not awarded the death penalty, then people might lose faith in the judicial process,' the bench grimly observed.

The judges also referred to the brief interaction with Qasab on video, saying that he was not repentant at all and was perfectly sane and in proper frame of mind.

Citing another reason for confirmation of the penalty, the HC said that Solkar’s argument that giving death penalty would make him a martyr was not sound enough. “This does not deter us from confirming death sentence.  We want those who are desirous of emulating him to know that courts do not take a kindly view of such people,” the judges said.


Shri Ranjit V. More was born on 4th November, 1959 and hails from Nimsod, Tq. Khatau, District Satara (Maharashtra). He did his schooling education at Nimsod, district Satara and B.A. (Hons.) from Kolhapur and obtained Law Degree from Sangli. He stood 2nd in order of merit of Shivaji University, Kolhapur in LL.B. He was also awarded National Merit Scholarship for prosecuting further studies. He did his LL.M. from Mumbai University. He enrolled as an Advocate on 15th September, 1983 and joined chamber of Shri A.P. Shah (now Chief Justice of Chennai High Court). He mainly practised at Appellate Side of High Court of Bombay. He appeared in several Constitutional, Civil and Criminal matters on behalf of Municipal Council, Municipal Corporations, District Central Cooperative Banks, Sugar Factories, Election Commission and Maharashtra Public Service Commission. He appeared in several important matters and also in Public Interest Litigations. He was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court on 8th September, 2006.