Thursday, April 4, 2013

Crime and Punishment


"---------another NIA official adding that without SUA, the NIA would have no jurisdiction over the case. " Very very interesting statement. In plain words it means that SUA was invoked to make the NIA eligible to investigate and not because the crime falls within the ambit of SUA. It boils down to the simple fact that India does not have any agency which can investigate crime at high seas. This SUA in full form is 'Convention For The Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation'. In the beginning of the Act is stressed again and again that it is for the purpose of terrorism. There it was specifically stated that '..NOTING that acts of the crew which are subject to normal shipboard discipline are outside the purview of this Convention...'. What does it mean ? It is specifically to be used to a criminal activity is connected or at least suspected to be connected with terrorism. By no stretch of imagination this alleged shooting can be called a terrorism connected activity. One learned and honourable judge of a Kerala court when asked by the defence counsel whether this shooting can be termed as an act of terrorism has answered orally that it can be considered but did not give any further explanation to his statement. I have long back heard that, for the recruitment to some government post which had age bar a protege of a minister was to be considered and obviously selected. Unfortunately the person was not eligible due to age bar. So the rule was changed so that that person could also apply. After the person was selected the age bar was restored to its previous level. This also looks something on those lines. Just to make NIA eligible to do investigation change the law to be applied. My question is simple. When India do not have any proper law or agency to try this case, and when Italy had paid adequate compensation to the aggrieved parties, what was the purpose of hogging this case from the Italian hands? Does India think that Italy will not try this case properly and punish the marines if found guilty?  Does India think that India is the only country in the world where dispensation of justice is really JUST ? Will not proper justice meted out to the crime committed on Indian citizen if the trial and punishment was done by Italy? If all the crimes committed against Indian citizens are to be tried in India only will not India have to ask all other countries of the world to send back all the Indians who have committed crimes in other countries. Why not take up the matter of Rajat Gupta and ask US to send him to India for proper and just trial here? Why not our Parliament enact a law that all the citizens of India who commit crime abroad should be deported to India by the countries where the crimes were committed to have a fair and just trial? If any MPs read this I am sure at least some of them will take up this suggestion of enacting this law to get all our citizens who have committed crime abroad to be sent to India.
,

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Diplomatic Immunity and Immunity for Soldiers


Judges are human and they can err. Many an innocent has suffered due to mistake in dispensation of justice. I fail to understand how he came to the conclusion that the Marines were mercenaries employed by the shipping company for remuneration? There is no doubt that they are military personnel (or if you want navy) of Italian government. How they came to be on the ship. They were sent there. The question is whether they were on private capacity or sent by government. Had they been in private capacity they would have been termed as Private Armed Security Guard. In that case they will not have any immunity and they will work under the captain of the ship. If they were posted as Vessel Protection Detachment then they are sent by the government and will be directly under the control of government and the captain will not have any authority on them. In this case the marines were not under the captain and it shows clearly they were deployed as VPD and they were protecting the assets of Italy. Then they should have immunity from any action of another country. These things were not seen by the learned judge. The pity is neither SC went to this issue.Guilfoyle, Bellish and others have told that the marines have immunity.


Mr.Padmakumar, the marines are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. The question of immunity was told in the two blogs to which you only gave me guidance. I do not know why Mr.Salve did not raise objection to the question of immunity. I read the blogs DJILP,EJIL and Communis hostis.. It was one of the it was given the immunity case in this case of marines. There it was told that it is long process of argument but finally it will won. Why Harish Salve did not contest it? In all probability he must have been very confident that the case can be won even without resorting to that. That was I understood from the interview of him in 'Devils Advocate' programme. When the boat owner Freddy is put on witness stand, and he is sure to be put as prosecution witness as he was the one who was very much there when it happened, defence can make him tell the truth that the boat was sailing towards the ship without heeding to the warning shot. He told it in private. My interest in this case is purely academic. I am no lawyer but went to the concerned portions of the law and came to my conclusions. I am ready to argue on the aspect of the law and learn. I liked to read those blogs by them who are masters in International law. I read two more blogs one by Anup Surendranth and another by Harish Sankar. They all give excellent analysis of the case. That is why I new that SC erred in its view of diplomatic immunity. The ambassador cannot be restrained whether SC or HM orders. He has immunity.I don't think that courts are always correct. They make mistakes.

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Italian Marines

First issue is that of jurisdiction. To a lay man like me the UNCLOS and Maritime Zone Act clearly shows that the jurisdiction of a country extends only up 12 NM from the base line. Criminal laws cannot be applied there. This shooting was on suspected pirates which unfortunately turned out to be not so is a clear criminal act and nothing to do with security of India. The marines should be tried for homicide as per the law and since it is out of territorial waters of India it should be done by Italy as per International laws. As regards the issue of Italy first refusing to send back the marines and later agreeing to send them is a diplomatic faux pas. Ambassadors diplomatic immunity cannot be questioned at all. He has stood surety on behalf of his country Italy. It is not in his personal capacity. If he has asked Supreme Court to allow the marines to go to Italy it was because the marines were under the care of SC and not he was submitting to the jurisdiction of SC. So his immunity is intact. Supreme Court should not have taken the assurance as he was immune and taken some other surety to ensure the marines return. People are arguing that Mancini has lost his immunity when he applied for the temporary release of the marines. Mancini could loose his immunity in an imagingary case like this. Suppose his car was hit by another car in the market or vice versa and assume there was some argument with the driver of the other car. If during that if Mancini had hit the other one and he hit back. If Mancini goes to an Indian court he will lose his immunity for that particular case as he has submitted himself to the Indian law. Here he has given assurance on behalf of Italy and he cannot be touched without crossing the Vienna Convention.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

It is our boat, Our courts--Opinion > The Hindu

In this article the author Mr.V.S.Mani has argued that India has authority to try the case. To support his arguments he has quoted the relevant sections of the Indian and International laws.
1.He argues that Article 297 of the Constitution of India does not refer to a 'Contiguous zone'. That does not mean that contiguous zone does not exist but only that it has not been named so. The main zone beyond territorial waters of a coastal state is the EEZ extending up to 200 nautical miles from the base line on the shore. It is this Exclusive Economic Zone which is subdivided into 1.Territorial waters where all the laws of the land applies 2. The contiguous zone between 12 and 24 N.M from the base line where only security, customs, immigration and pollution laws of the country applies and beyond that zone where India has exclusive rights to the mineral and other wealth in the sea bed. It is not proper to read that Exclusive Economic Zone as lying beyond Territorial waters. Even territorial waters is part of the EEZ but since it is already termed as territorial waters it need not be stressed. That is all.

2.It is argued that the Central Government may enact a law and notify in the Gazette. But I think that it is mentioned that any such laws should confirm to the International law. India is a signatory to the UNCLOS which has specified that the criminal laws of the coastal state will be applicable only in territorial waters. So India cannot extend its criminal laws to contiguous zone without the concurrence of the UN authority or should inform of its decision to with draw from the UNCLOS agreement.

3.It is argued that UNCLOS mentions only navigational incidents to be tried by the flag state. Criminal activities are not included. If criminal activities does not come as per the UNCLOS under flag ship rule it does not mean that it is something any of the parties can try. If there is a lacunae in the law it should be rectified by an international authority. This was a right occasion to decide in cases like this where two countries are involved which country should have the right to try the case. Had this happened in one ship laws are clear. Unfortunately the crime started in Italy and ended in India. So which country should try. Here only the author has some point. In US in one case a person send some poison from one state to another in another state. The victim died in the second state and the perpetrator was tried in the victims state. That way India has right to try the case. But does a boat without any specific flag constitute legally as a part of India?

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

New Indian Constitution

I think it is high time that we once more amend our respected and revered constitution. I am no expert on constitution who can interpret like Mullas can interpret Quran as to their whims and fancies. Being a 'Mango Man' I shall state my ideas in the most primitive and blunt matter.//////////// /   We the people of India having been subjected to all sorts of discrimination and slight at the hands of the world community here by rewrite our Constitution to ward of any such attempts from the world community in future. Once this amendment is passed by the both houses of Parliaments and duly signed by our honourable president it will cancel our earlier Constitution. /////  Our Constitution shall over ride all other International Laws, Conventions, Norms, Unwritten practices and all such things within the Republic of India and in all places where its laws hold good as stated in the previous constitution. It will be acceptable to foray into foreign territories and get any offender and make law applicable. Once the offender has put his foot in India territory Indian laws will apply irrespective of the fact whethr the original crime was committed in a foreign land. No diplomats will enjoy any blanket immunity. Whatever immunity he wants to claim will be given at the pleasure of the President of India who can get any advice from law ministry. Any diplomat who cheats is liable to be put on a donkey with face blackened and seated backwards. He will be wearing a garland made of old chappals. The useless and jobless people will be given an allowance of Rs.100/- to boo the diplomat and follow. (Since I have run out of ideas on how the diplomat can be further humiliated this article will continue after a very longish break)

Monday, March 18, 2013

Italy may file suit

Supreme court has squashed all the proceedings by Kerala courts. By inference all the actions taken by Kerala State has no legality. The state has no jurisdiction on the waters where the incident took place. It cannot arrest the marines or ship as it has no authority. Hence the arrest and detention of the ship was illegal. Keeping them in prison was also illegal and keeping the ship in the port also illegal. Since the marines were not arrested legally their escape cannot be construed as an illegal action. They have only escaped from an illegal detention. It is absurd to take action against them or against the ambassador. Italy in all probability will file suit in an International Court against the detention of the Marines illegally and detaining the ship illegally the government is liable to pay compensation. Centre is sure to put all the blame on the adventureous Kerala Government.  All those crying justice can start contribution to the Italian fund. The fund will be called "Kerala CM's Special Fund to pay Italy for our garguntuan mistake" There will not be any tax deduction facility as Centre also need money to pay for the escalated rates for Westland choppers.

Comments to NYT

  1. To say that Mancini reneged his word is not really right. It is Italy the country which has refused to send back the Marines for whose departure to Italy, Mancini has stood surety. He has promised their return and he could not keep his promise. It is not he who has refused to send the marines back.(Of course the time is not yet over as the last date is 22nd March) But since the Italian government has informed that it does intent to send the marines back to India that it is a closed thing as of now. The important question is can the Supreme Court of India restrict the movement of an accredited diplomat of another country who enjoys diplomatic immunity as per Vienna Convention ? The interesting thing is many former diplomats are of the opinion that the ambassador enjoys diplomatic immunity and cannot be restricted or punished but all the luminaries of law think otherwise and that the diplomat has lost his immunity once he submits himself to the Supreme Courts authority. But here also it is a tricky question. He only has applied for the release of the Marines for one month and has stood surety for their return to India. Can that act be construed as an act of submitting to the authority of Supreme Court. This question should actually should be decided by an International authority and not by the court of a country. It is something what can affect the whole diplomatic structure and behaviour. There is another interesting angle. Were the two marines prisoners at all? (contd)
  2. (contd) There is another interesting aspect. Supreme Court has in its order of 18th Jan. has quashed all the case filed by Kerala State stating that the Kerala Government has no authority to try the case and it should be done by a special court to be set up by Central Government. It actually amounts to the fact whatever Kerala government has been doing was illegal. It has no right to arrest the marines or keep them in custody. It is evident when Supreme Court instructed to shift the Marines immediately to Delhi. So they were to be charged for the crime afresh in a court to be set up under the guidance of the Supreme Court and it is not clear who will formally charge them. So they were not prisoners of any authority. They were only being detained. Unless officially charged and arrested but only detained unofficially and if such persons escapes, is it a crime? If anyone helps will it constitute a crime? Italy should approach the International Court of Justice at The Hague for redress. A state in India has arrested illegally its two officers from International waters, imprisoned them illegally and detained the ship for three months illegally causing much monetary loss. Let that court decide which will be a precedence for disputes between countries like this.

Italian ambassador in SC

The whole issue is getting uglier and uglier day by day. So far it was the question of Marines. Even in the case of Marines there were two phases. First phase when Kerala government went  hammer and tongs to punish the killer Marines who killed two innocent Kerala fishermen. That is as per Kerala version to which I do not contribute. It is just the belligerent attitude of Kerala.  For one year Kerala spat fire like a  dragon. Unfortunately for Kerala Supreme Court poured water on the head of the dragon and suddenly made it to put its tail behind its legs. Then next was the limbo phase. Technically speaking the Marines cannot be called prisoners. Because whatever action was done by over zealous Kerala was wrong. They had no authority to arrest the Marines or detain the ship or anything. Supreme Court has said clearly that Kerala has no authority to try the case. It was to be tried by a special court in fact an Admiralty Court which has jurisdiction for anything happening beyond the shores of the country. As Mr.Harish Salve has said in an interview Supreme Court could have pronounced the illegality of the arrest when the Supreme Court pronounced that Kerala court has no jurisdiction to try the case. The Marines should have been released from prison directly and allowed to go back to Italy. But it was messed up by putting them under the jurisdiction of Chanakypuri Police Station. It is during this limbo state the two marines went to Italy. So technically they cannot be prisoners and hence should be free to go back to Italy. Now the only issue is they have assured that they will return to India and for that the Italian ambassador has stood surety.  Now there are these questions.  1. If someone is held illegally by a government and escape from the captivity is it a punishable act? Since the detention itself was illegal how the escape is punishable?  2. In the same vein can any one who stand surety for this act  be liable for punishment as the whole thing was illegal.  3. Then when the international law which in this case is the Vienna Convention states without any ambiguity that an accredited ambassador enjoys diplomatic immunity how the envoy can be restricted in his movements. Submitting an application is in no way agreeing for the authority of that body on the applicant. In this case what Mancini has agreed is only that Supreme Court has authority over the Marines who were under the custody of Supreme Court. Not agreeing for the authority of the Supreme Court over Mancini himself. I feel very much that Italy should go to the International Court of Justice and is sure to get proper justice.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Times of India article on choice for Italy

"Italian Ambassador to India, DanieleMancini, risks becoming the first-ever foreign diplomat to be hauled up for contempt of court". So says a report in the Times of India. And simultaneously India can enter into Guinness Book for being the  first country to haul up an accredited diplomat, an ambassador to the court for the reason that he stood surety to two of his military personnel who were supposed to have murdered two Indian citizens while discharging their duty to protect the ship in which they were sailing. All are hazarding guesses to what will happen tomorrow 18th March 2013 at the Supreme Court. Every Tom, Dick and Harry or rather Amar, Akbar and Anthony is full of expectation that Supreme Court will punish him for breach of promise. All expect Supreme Court to behave like Queen of Hearts in Alice In Wonderland. What Supreme Court has done in this matter  so far is, on the basis of the communication from the Government of India that Italy has informed that it is not going to send back the two marines for whom the ambassador has stood guarantee when they went to Italy to ask  the ambassador not to leave India till Monday. It has not instructed the government to seal all the airports against his departure. It was the Home Ministry's overdrive which sent instructions to airports and immigration authorities to see that the ambassador do not tries to escape. Neither the ambassador has shown any tendency to leave India. On the contrary he has told unless he is declared persona non grata he intends to remain here in India. Government is behaving like the Chaupat Raja of Andher Nagari. The issue is of punishing the marines for the alleged crime. Will it be deemed that they have been punished only if they face trial in person and answer all the question put by the court and finally the court sentence them? Is it very much necessary that they are hanged for the murder or put in prison for many years? Will it not do if they are tried in absentia and if found guilty sentenced? I think there are instances where perpetrators of crime have been punished in absentia. The public and government want to see them actually punished. To be put in jail uniform and breaking stones or whatever they do if punished for hard labour. That is if the judge do not feel that their crime is one of the rarest of rare. Why can't this case be tried in an international court as the argument that whether the shooting happened in Indian waters is not a clearly established fact as it happened in contiguous zone. It is only India's contention. Let an international court decide it. Next time if anything like this happen beyond contiguous zone then also it could be argued that it is within the 200 nm limit of economic zone and the country has right to try any cases of happenings there. India is not aware that there can be a same situation where the roles are reversed. Before that it will be good if the thing is settled in International court so that it will create a precedence.

Common Solution for India and Italy

Oh ! It is easier sadi than done. The Kashmir dispute is some 60 odd years old. India and Pakistan has not been able to settle the issue. For any border dispute to be settled if Pakistan says that everything including Kashmir should be discussed, India flatly refuses to talk about Kashmir and stick to the issue that it is India's. In this case of this Marines also India is not prepared for the case being mediated by an International authority. It sticks to its guns that it has sovereign authority to try as it happened in its territorial water claiming that the contiguous zone is also an area where its laws apply. In such a situation how a mutual solution can be obtained. So far the marines were under its custody and it could dictate terms to Italy. Now with the marines being in Italy, India has not that much advantage. Still it continues with its belligerent attitude. The warning to all airports to apprehend the Italian ambassador is ample evident to that mindset. The government is dancing to the tunes of mass hysteria on this count. The whole of India feels that when it was ready to slaughter the white man he escaped captivity and flown to safer place. It feels it has been cheated. As of now it looks there cannot be any common solution. Now it is like reading scripture to devil. And now on Monday something new is going to happen when the Italian ambassador is to be in Supreme Court. Then something will be known.

Friday, March 15, 2013

Rape Bill and Italian Marines

Whether it is the Italian issue which is making this "R@PE BILL" a hash or whether it is the other way, both are equally in the same state. Lowering the age for consensual sex to 16 years while keeping the minimum age for marriage for girls is absolutely a foolish suggestion. If marriageable age for girls is lowered from 18 to 16 this will be alright. This age is kept at 18 due to the physiological concern of the girls that when they have children they should be mature bodily and mentally.  Further should a government encourage pre-marital sex by law? We who constantly harp on our culture and traditions this will be too much and out of sync with view of general public. Similarly the case of stalking and voyeurism. Not that these are not bad but these will be misused very much to harass. Even the much touted 498A is being misused by quite few to harass their poor husbands. Stalking should be defined as persistent following to harass intentionally and it should be the girls duty to prove it that it was done with bad purpose. It should not be left to the accused to prove his innocence. So also voyeurism. It should be punishable only when some device is used to take image while the woman or girl is in their private place and not when in public place. What I intend to say is that if some take it on her head to walk topless on streets and if someone takes her photo it cannot be considered a voyeurism. Only when someone take photograph while she is with her husband or taking bath and like that. Our government has the habit of overshooting the target. It can be seen in this proposed bill and the way the Italian issue is being dealt. There was no urgency to start all these maneuvers to get the Italian marines back. The court is not yet ready and the court has to settle the issue of jurisdiction first as Supreme Court has told that this court will decide it. Heavens will not fall down if the Marines are not back immediately. Once their presence is required for the case then Italy can be asked to produce. Italy can be asked that India cannot accept their stand of not sending the marines. But government do lot of things in a 24 hrs time. It stops departure of the designated ambassador to Italy. That act is itself defeating the very purpose as he is the person in Rome who should interact with Italian authorities in this regard. Then the talk of downgrading the post. Mean while a red corner alert to hold Italian ambassador from escaping from India ! And the most funny thing the ambassador himself has told that he has no intention of leaving India unless he was declared persona non grata. It is insulting a country. When Italy told that they don't intent to send the marines back, the other countries must have thought that it was unethical of Italy to go back on their words. With India acting like Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland that India is governed by a bunch of nincompoops. They will be blaming India more than Italy now.  

New Indian ambassador to Rome

Down grading our embassy is very good idea. These white ones always looks down on us. They have not yet realised that we are far more superior and had a great culture and civilization when they were in Neanderthal age. To treat them as inferior to us is the right thing to do. Hence forth we should have a Class IV employee representing us at Rome. As of now there is one such person who is rather free of any duties. A BBMP peon has been found to be so smart that he has amassed wealth much much much higher than one peon or even the head of the BBMP could have been expected with his normal earning. He should be ideal. The added advantage is he is well versed in all wheeler dealer activities and can be depended upon when such occasion warrants it. Only problem is whether he has opted for Parappana Agrahara as his temporary abode. In that case he can be released from there and posted at Rome as this is interest of the nation and the matter is very urgent.

How to keep our face

This airport alert and catching this delinquent ambassador are all temporary measures. Situations like this may arise in future as we are highly strung people and so many countries may trample on our toes. So permanent solution should be found out which we can put on use at any time when situation demand. Here is one brainy one from me. We should send some of our smart and bright navy personnel to Somalia to be trained in piracy. Apart from navy personnel it will be good to send some bright guys from the fisherment fraternity of Kerala as well. The advantage of recruiting Kerala fishermen is that once they mix with Somalians even God will not be able to make out who is a Somalian and who is Keralan. And these recruits should be given thorough training in piracy related activities, both theory as well as practical. After am years training they should be stationed in Somalia. Whenever an enemy merchant ship is sighted they should rush to the ship and board and take the crew as prisoners and take all the merchandise. After a couple of enemy ships are caught like this the country is sure to learn their mistake in antagonizing a friendly nation and will fall at our feet. And it will be a lesson to other countries as well. No one will dare to cross swords with us henceforth. Hope this suggestion find approval in the next cabinet meeting. I am open to correction and revised suggestion will be forwarded immediately.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Country of Hypocrites

What a bunch hypocrites and morons we are. When some junior diplomat was asked to remove his head gear or patted at airport for security we jump and cry foul for not observing proper proper protocol for diplomats. In this very same Italy ( I think it is Milan airport) when one sports person was asked to remove his head gear our external affairs ministry went in full steam to decry such a behaviour. Now we the same people have no compunction to restrict an accredited diplomat representing a country for the fault of his following instructions of the country he represent. What we have here is not democracy but abject HYPOCRISY. Unadulterated. Who knows he won't put in chains too !!!!!!

Quixotic Diplomacy

Does not interfering with the movement of an accredited diplomat constitute dis-regarding diplomatic immunity given by Vienna Convention. The Italian ambassador must have acted as per the instruction he received from Rome. For that can he be held personally responsible. The whole of India seems to be bitten by mob psychology when common sense bid good by. People will cry foul but should government also start playing to the gallery and start doing foolish things. First thing is to be taken the weight of the issue. The marines who have been accused of the murder has escaped. This act is not something affecting the national security or such important issues. If two terrorist escaped with the help of some foreign diplomat it is more serious. This has only symbolic value. Dawood Ibrahim the most wanted criminal financing terrorist activities is safely ensconced in Karachi most probably with the connivance of ISI. Are we making a one millionth noise on getting him here? Is it not much more important than this two marines who is accused of shooting two fishermen by mistooking them for pirates? What about the fellow who masterminded the 26/11 blast in Bombay. He shares platform with VIPs in Pakistan. Has India achieved anything in getting him here? India is a big wind bag and nothing else. The old saying 'empty drum make more noise' holds very apt for India. China never makes all these noises but when necessary acts. We are becoming the greatest jokers in the world. It will be better if India stops making a fool day by day thinking like Don Quixote. Earlier it stops this tough guy posture better it will be. Now the marines have gone away. The best way will be to file a case in the International Court of Justice in The Hague or with UN.. Idiots will shout. If you go on listening you too will become one.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Age of Consent for Sexual act

It is nothing but silly to argue whether name it r@pe or sexual assault as it is the deed which is important than what it is called. It will be better to classify all sexual assault where there is a contact of male sexual organ on the body of the victim whether male or female. Sexual assaults like touching on the body of the victim with an intention to attack her or his modesty but not physically cause any harm. To bring stalking and such as a sexual assault is not proper. If someone persistently follow someone it should be termed as criminal harassment. It will be better if it is brought under some other clause of IPC. And the move to bring down the age of consensual sex from 18 to 16 is most foolish move. When the minimum age for marriage for a girl is 18 what it is the logic in bringing consensual sex to 16? Is it not encouraging premarital sex? You sleep with a girl but cannot marry till she attains the age of 18 ! Wonderful logic. If someone r@pes a girl of 16 and the case goes for trial and the accused claims that she had agreed for the sexual act it will be very difficult for the girl to prove that she did not consent. The defence attorney will put the girl through a wringer and girl would have thought it would have been better if she has not complained at all. For what purpose is this move. Whom does the government wants to protect? There will be many more Suryanelli cases and many a big wig will escape the arms of law on this count only. They will not need to cook up any alibi. They can straight away say that 'she was willing'. The argument that youth caught at the sexual act are harassed is no excuse for premarital sex. Anyone who wants to do wait till they attain the prescribed age. Here there is one more anomaly. For boys the minimum age for marriage is 21 years. Then is it not crime to do a sexual act before they attain 21 years. The age prescribed for boys and girls are according to the human physiology. Especially in the case of girls. A girl is not fit physiologically to bear child before she is 18. It is an average one and may change with individuals. So if a girl of 16 had consensual sex and she gets pregnant how do you account for the act? Will the girl arrested for marrying someone when she was 18? Is not sexual act the consummation of marriage? Is it not all other ceremonies like 'saptapadi' and all just to legalise the marriage? Government seems to be stacked with not only corrupt but morons and stupids. And if these 'unpads' are to make laws even God will not be able to save this country. What else to expect when corrupt and @apists and murderers and all sorts of criminals have a free hand?

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Justice KT.Thomas view on death penalty

I was going through few of the comments and except on person (kkg from Bangalore) everyone was very critical of Justice Thomas. It will look that all those who comments are very law abiding citizens and do not commit any crimes at all. I can bet many of those at least if not all will not hesitate to cross a red signal if policeman is not watching or go by the no entry road without any feeling that they are breaking law. It is the very same people who throw all garbage on the roads. They don't have any compunction in breaking laws. When it comes to kill someone judicially everyone shouts Yes Yes Kill him , Kill him. Many times someone is punished on circumstantial evidence. It is not fool proof. If someone goes to a house where a murder has happened and knocks on door and getting no response comes out of gate and is observed by someone, naturally he will be suspect. If he was a frequent visitor to that house and his finger prints were on some door or balustrade or things like that it will be confirmed. If the man has gone to pay some debt and he returns with money as the door had not opened and if the money is found on his person and also there is some record that the murdered man had withdrawn a large amount on the same day the visitors fate is sealed as per circumstantial evidence. The truth could be something else. Someone who had some enmity with the murdered man had gone earlier and had some altercation and killed him and finding the other man dead run out of the house which no one noticed. The money the murdered man had taken from bank must have been given to someone else earlier in the day. In such a case due to circumstantial evidence the wrong one will get punished. It is not due to any callousness on the part of the judge. Only because all the evidence points against the innocent victim. If such a person is sentenced to death, what a big miscarriage of justice it will be. If he is punished for life, at least the truth may be found out later. But once he is killed what is the use of truth coming our later. In the case of the so called Rajiv Killers, their participation is very very nominal. Buying some cell for making bomb and like that. They did not have directly any involvement in the actual murder. To treat them as murderers and kill them judicially is a very grave injustice. So too the Veerappan aids. They are village folks with no criminal records. They were recruited by Veerappan to assist him. To judicially murder them is also a great mistake. It can never be a case of 'rarest of rare'. And the irony is that those who used Veerappan to amass wealth are roaming the country as great patriots and leaders. Mr.Justice Thomas is hundred percent right and no one without previous criminal history should be awarded death penalty. It will be a great injustice to humanity.