Connect with us

SOUTH ASIA

Death Penalty Verdict For Minor’s Kidnapper-killer Upheld

Published

on

Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court of India

 

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday upheld the death sentence given to a man for killing a seven-year-old boy whom he had kidnapped for Rs.5 lakh ransom in 2009 in Tamil Nadu.
Upholding the death sentence awarded to Sunder, the apex court bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice J.S. Khehar said there was no room in law for “any doubt that the offence of kidnapping for ransom accompanied by a threat to cause death contemplates punishment with death”.

Justice Khehar said: “Even without an accused actually having committed the murder of the individual kidnapped for ransom, the provision contemplates the death penalty.”

The Class 2 student, Suresh, a resident of Karkudal village, some 200 km from Chennai, was kidnapped July 27, 2009, and killed soon after.

Jutice Khehar said there was no doubt that Sunder has been “found to have kidnapped Suresh for ransom, and has also actually committed his murder”.

The guilt of Sunder “must be considered to be of the gravest nature, justifying the harshest punishment prescribed for the offence”.

Sunder “is guilty of two heinous offences, which independently of one another, provide for the death penalty”.

Noting that there was no previous enmity between the parties, the court said: “This fact demonstrates that the accused had no value for human life. The instant circumstance demonstrates extreme mental perversion not worthy of human condonation.”

The murder was done in a “well thought out and planned manner”, the court said: “This approach of the accused reveals a brutal mindset of the highest order.”

The court added that the “choice of kidnapping the particular child for ransom was well planned and consciously motivated.”

The trial court gave death penalty to Sunder July 30, 2010, and the Madras High Court upheld the decision Sep 30, 2010.

SOUTH ASIA

Pakistani Anti-graft body wants travel ban on Nawaz Sharif, kin

Published

on

Nawaz sharif

Pakistan’s anti-corruption watchdog has asked authorities to place ousted premier Nawaz Sharif, his daughter and son-in-law on the Exit Control List to prevent them from leaving the country.

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) sent a formal request to the ministry of interior. The interior ministry officials confirmed that the NAB wrote that names of Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Capt (retd) Muhammad Safdar should be put on the Exit Control List (ECL), which listed individuals not allowed to leave Pakistan.

The NAB argued that as the trial of the three nears its conclusion, it is feared that they would leave the country.

Earlier, a similar request to place name of finance minister Ishaq Dar on ECL was not accepted, allowing him to go to London and never return.

Sharif, 68, and his family this week filed an application with the accountability court seeking a fortnight’s exemption from personal appearance from February 19 onwards to let them go to London to see Sharif’s ailing wife. Three cases were filed against Sharif and his family last year, including Avenfield properties, Azizia & Hill Metal Establishment, and Flagship Investments.

Maryam and Safdar are accused only in Avenfield properties case. The NAB had filed two supplementary references against Sharif, his sons Hasan and Hussain regarding Al-Azizia Steel Mills & Hill Metal Establishment and Flagship Investment cases.

Continue Reading

SOUTH ASIA

Pakistan “breaches obligations’ on nuclear arms reduction, UN court told

Published

on

Pakistan-breaches-obligations-on-nuclear-arms-reduction,-UN-court-told

The Hague: Pakistan is violating its “obligations” to the international community by failing to reduce its nuclear arsenal, the Marshall Islands told the UN’s highest court on Tuesday.

The small Pacific Island nation is this week launching three unusual cases against India, Pakistan and Britain before the International Court of Justice.

Majuro wants to put a new spotlight on the global nuclear threat, its lawyers said yesterday, by using its own experience with massive US-led nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s.

“Pakistan is in breach of its obligations owed to the international community as a whole,” when it comes to reducing its nuclear stockpile, said Nicholas Grief, one of the island nation’s lawyers.

Islamabad and its nuclear-armed neighbour India “continue to engage in a quantitative build-up and a qualitative improvement” of their atomic stockpiles, added Tony deBrum, a Marshallese government minister.

DeBrum warned that even a “limited nuclear war” involving the two countries would “threaten the existence” of his island nation people.

Pakistan and India have fought three wars since independence from Britain in 1947, two of them over the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir.

In 1998, the rival neighbours both demonstrated nuclear weapons capability.

The ICJ’s judges are holding hearings for the next week and a half to decide whether it is competent to hear the lawsuits brought against India and Pakistan — neither of which have signed the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

A third hearing against Britain — which has signed the NPT — scheduled to start on Wednesday will be devoted to “preliminary objections” raised by London.

The Marshalls initially sought to bring a case against nine countries it said possessed nuclear arms: Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States.
Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons.

But the Hague-based ICJ, set up in 1945 to rule in disputes between states, has only admitted three cases against Britain, India and Pakistan, because they have accepted the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction.

Pakistan’s lawyers did not attend Tuesday’s hearings.

It did however file a counter-claim against Majuro’s allegations saying “the court has no jurisdiction to deal with the application” and insisting that the case is “not admissible”, said ICJ President Ronny Abraham.

Continue Reading

SOUTH ASIA

Bangladesh to drop Islam as official religion following attacks on Hindus

Published

on

Bangladesh to drop Islam as official religion following attacks on Hindus

New Delhi: Bangladesh is likely to drop Islam as its official religion following a series of attacks on people from other faiths in the country. The country’s Supreme Court is hearing a plea challenging the status of the official religion of the country to Islam.

Bangladesh, which was declared a secular country after its formation in 1971, was declared an Islamic country following a constitutional amendment in 1988.

According to a report in the Daily Mail, the plea has challenged the declaration of Islam as the national religion of the country.

The move is being supported by leaders from the minority communities like Hindus, Christians and Muslim minority Shiites.

Bangladesh has 90 per cent of Muslims, 8 per cent Hindus and remaining constitutes Christians and Muslim minority Shiites.

In last month, a Hindu priest was hacked to death following an attack on a temple in Panchgarh district. Two others were seriously injured in the attack. There have been several lethal attacks on writers and bloggers.

According to a report in the Independent, Islamist groups Jumatul Mujahedeen Bangladesh and Ansarullah Bangla Team are believed to have carried out at least seven attacks on foreign and minority people in Bangladesh in the past year.

terror-on-hindus-in-bd-viii

Temple

Hindu-temple-attacked

Continue Reading

Follow us on Twitter

Trending

css.php
Skip to toolbar