New Delhi, June 29 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Wednesday commuted to life term the death sentence awarded to a dacoit Sonu Sardar, guilty of murder of five persons, including two children, in Chhat
New Delhi, June 29 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Wednesday commuted to life term the death sentence awarded to a dacoit Sonu Sardar, guilty of murder of five persons, including two children, in Chhattisgarh in 2004.
A division bench of Justice G.S. Sistani and Justice Vinod Goel commuted the capital punishment to life term, saying: “The mercy petition was processed in an extremely cavalier and casual fashion by the state government at all stages, right up to placing the note for the Governor.”
Sardar, along with his brother and accomplices, had killed five persons of a family, including a woman and two children, during a dacoity bid in Chhattisgarh’s Cher village on November 26, 2004.
The trial court had awarded him death sentence and the Chhattisgarh High Court had upheld it. The Supreme Court in February 2012 had concurred with the findings of two courts below and affirmed the punishment.
His mercy petition was also dismissed by both state government and President of India in May 2014.
In February 2015, the Supreme Court had also rejected his review plea.
Sardar later moved the high court seeking direction that his death penalty be commuted to life imprisonment on account of delay in deciding his mercy plea as well as for allegedly keeping him in “solitary confinement illegally”.
Reducing the sentence, the high court said: “The relevant considerations of the mitigating circumstances, recommendation of the Jail Superintendent and the young age of the petitioner were not placed before the Governor, depriving him of the opportunity to exercise his power in a fair and just manner.”
The court noted that there were “numerous discrepancies and falsities” in the affidavits filed by the Chhattisgarh government.
Making it clear that “life imprisonment means (till the) end of one’s life”, it said: “Further, the incarceration of the petitioner in solitary confinement without any judicial order has run awry of the fundamental rights, and this court, being the sentinel of the Constitution, is bound to intervene and give relief to the petitioner.”
Source: India.com, June 29, 2017
⚑ | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!