VISION FOR ALL

Rahul Kumar

275 Posts

32 comments

Reader Blogs are not moderated, Jagran is not responsible for the views, opinions and content posted by the readers.
blogid : 8093 postid : 1065685

Medium Way Of Punishment When Accused Is Not Innocent Beyond Reasonable Doubts

Posted On: 26 Aug, 2015 Others में

  • SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Rahul Kumar with Nutan Thakur and 19 others
July 29 at 9:36am · Edited ·
YAKUB MEMON: NOT DESERVING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,ALSO NOT INNOCENT BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS
As per the request made by the learned facebook friend Dr Bhanu Pandey,son of former Member of Parliament Late Sarjoo Pandey to light into the case of Yakub Memon, i submit my observations.
In view of provisions contained in section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 four things motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conducts of an accused should be taken into account to decide the nature of the case and the quantum of sentence against the accused, if the prosecution has been able to prove allegations beyond all reasonable doubts. Firstly, it ought to be observed whether prosecution has been able to prove allegations beyond all reasonable doubts before deciding as to the nature of the case and the quantum of sentence.
Questions raised in pros and cons in Yakub Memon’s case are conflicting each other. Subsequent conducts of this Memon that he preferred to come India at his own volition, made his family members to come, he submitted a lot of documentary evidences against ISI and Dons including Dawood and his brother Tiger Memon and helped in enquiry don’t necessarily mean that Yakub Memon was innocent beyond all reasonable doubts. On the other, we can’t prove him quite guilty beyond all reasonable doubts without crossing these above facts and questions .
Such conflicting nature of facts need to be dealt with a medium way. In general nature of doubts, there is only the provision in the favour of the accused to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt, but there is no special provision for the conflicting nature of doubts. Sole provision of benefit of doubt in the law amounts to misuse of law. Sometimes making real culprit to be acquitted on benefit of doubt, sometimes making accused to undergo heavier punishment because of the absence of dealing with medium way.
Motive, preparation (manner of occurrence) and previous conducts shown by the prosecution against this accused are as such, making him to deserve death penalty, but subsequent conducts are quite conflicting against the former facts. In such circumstances, accused must not deserve either heavier punishment or benefit of doubt, but deserve medium way of punishment.
In fact, medium way of punishment must be treated as a new legal principle in course of deciding as to the facts raised in cases like Yakub Memon’s Case. Accordingly, Yakub Memon doesn’t deserve dealth penalty. He undoubtedly deserves any such penalty which should be medium like life time imprisonment and then pardon of imprisonment after 14 years. Since Yakub Memon has been behind bars for last 20 years, he must now be released and kept under the supervision of security guards, which is literally called house arrest.
Subsequent conducts, which are conflicting to the facts shown by prosecution, are the sufficient ground in the present case to grant mercy.
Schizophrenia as a mental illness has been held by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India,(2014) 3 SCC 1 Para-86-87 to render a convict unfit for execution. Further, lack of giving opportunity of hearing to the convicted before issuance of death warrant makes the death warrant void in light of the Supreme Court decision in Shabnam vs Union of Indian and Ors, Writ Petition(Criminal) No-88 of 2015,decided on 27 May 2015.However,a fresh death warrant may be issued after giving opportunity of hearing. Both are other and secondary grounds in this case to grant interim mercy from execution till the time of becoming mentally sound of Yakub Memon or till the time of issuance of a fresh death warrant, which apply not only for this case, but for all such cases. On the ground of subsequent conflicting conducts final mercy must be granted.
Rahul Kumar’s photo.
Like Comment Share
Anil Rajgarh, Insinuatable Rano, Ankit Dev Arpan and 8 others like this.

Satya Prakash · 2 mutual friends
याकूब मेमन को फांसी देना हिंदुत्वता के खिलाफ …….पढ़ें पूरी खबरhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Satya-Prakash/149359721920501?ref=hl
Satya Prakash
Journalist
Satya Prakash’s photo.
Satya Prakash
Like Page
139 Likes
10 talking about this
Unlike · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · July 29 at 11:21pm

Amit Dayal I disagree in entirety he deserved what he got not even an inch of doubt was left in the prosecution, he was held guilty within the broad principles of criminal Justice system of this country, and he was decided guilty beyond all reasonable doubts.
The conviction and consequential hanging was justified. Nothing was violated I have gone through each of the nuke and corner of the case. So Mr. Rahul do not try to deviate people’s attention by blaming our judiciary.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · August 1 at 4:18pm

Rahul Kumar #AmitDayalBhaiji-I have not blamed the judiciary.I have blamed the lack of legal principles.I have sought a principle of medium way of punishment.If such principle would exist,cases like of Yakoob Memon would be dealt in different manner.
Like · Reply · August 1 at 6:11pm

Amit Dayal Mr. Rahul there is always a medium way theory of punishment existing in the criminal Justice system its not a new concept which you are putting forward these are established principles nd exist from times Immemorial and yes as far as yakubs hanging is concerned no need of medium way principle applicability is there that’s not a fit case for it, u can trust me for that.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · August 1 at 6:16pm

Amit Dayal The deterrence theory had to be applied and it has been applied nothing controversial, media is making the issues and some filthy so called elite people just in order to come in the lame limelight are questioning and putting a doubt on the conviction which I believe is wrong, all standards have taken care of in such sensitive cases whether it be of yakub or of kasab or afzal guru. Judiciary is not that dumb and incompetent they have great legal minds than us. Thanks.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · August 1 at 6:20pm

Rahul Kumar Existing medium way principle of punishment is something different from this principle what i have discussed.Just think,what if we are not able to cross the some prosecution facts as well as the some defence facts.In such circumstances,what should be the tendency of judgement?Principle discussed by me can be applied in such circumstances.
Like · Reply · August 1 at 6:27pm

Amit Dayal Your principal discussed by you is applied in certain cases
Unlike · Reply · 1 · August 1 at 6:29pm

Rahul Kumar I will have to study first about these certain cases of medium punishment on ground of conflicting facts of both parties.Only then i shall discuss with you.
Like · Reply · August 1 at 6:40pm

Amit Dayal Sure I welcome u for any assistance you require in law
Unlike · Reply · 1 · August 1 at 7:01pm · Edited

Amit Dayal But there can never be such case because an accused is presumed to be innocent in criminal cases untill proved beyond reasonable doubt, and then only conviction is possible however, the judges are given discretion to award sentences as their judicial mind compels them but still conviction will be there when it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that’s the universal theory accepted by the criminal jurisprudence of almost all the countries worldwide and quiet logical too. But in this case it was proved.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · August 1 at 7:11pm

Rahul Kumar It is a great fault in the criminal jurispundence.Beyond all reasonable doubts is applied only to prove someone guilty.Beyond all reasonable doubts is not applied to prove someone innocent.What if,when an accused is not innocent beyond all reasonable doubts as well not guilty beyond all reasonable doubts.He/she is neither proved absolutely guilty,nor proved absolutely innocent.Then why accused should be acquitted,if he is not proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubts,but also not proved innocent beyond all reasonable doubts.The two ironical circumstances appear when there is equivalent credibility of the evidences of the prosecution as well defence.In such circumstances,accused must not be acquitted on benefit of doubt or heavily punished,but dealt in something different medium manner,what i have discussed earlier.If the credibility of prosecution evidences is less than the defence evidences,only then benefit of doubt should be granted.
Like · Reply · August 2 at 5:48am

Rahul Kumar Pls go through my status and comments.Questions put by you are solved here. Ankit Dev Arpan
Like · Reply · August 2 at 5:51am

Amit Dayal Ab main kya bolun utha lijiye apne kandho pe criminal Justice system ko ukhad fekne k bhaar , revolution laiye established society mein chaos laiye sab khatam kar digiye good luck huh. Still not agreeing with with your proposition but good luck.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · August 2 at 7:03am

Rahul Kumar Thanks a lot #AmitDayalbhaiya
Like · Reply · 1 · August 2 at 11:07am

Amit Dayal God bless
Unlike · Reply · 1 · August 2 at 1:47pm

Insinuatable Rano I really appreciate your thought ###Rahul Kumar
Unlike · Reply · 1 · August 2 at 4:28pm
Rahul Kumar

Write a comment…



Tags:

Rate this Article:

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

0 प्रतिक्रिया

  • SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Post a Comment

CAPTCHA Image
*

Reset

नवीनतम प्रतिक्रियाएंLatest Comments


topic of the week



latest from jagran