Afzal Guru, Parliament attack convict, hanged in Delhi's Tihar Jail

[only_truths]

Re: No Comments :(

this was a terrible decision by the supreme court. the case was piss-poor. no one even made a case that he was personally involved in parliament bombing at the level of participating in the event directly. this is the first time i guess in the history of anglosaxon law that a person has been sentenced to death on circumstantial evidence and for a case where even prosecution did not make a case of his direct particpation. very sad day.

I agree that in the past there are many innocents convicted and many real criminals were let loose due to circumstantial evidence.

What is the alternative to Anglosaxon law in relation to circumstantial evidence? Can some one in the court use a moral judgement? or based on his view? or based on Public opinion?

I believe everyone in the court has to adhere to Constitution of the country. But interpretation can be different. That is why we have a Bench in special cases, where majority in the Bench decide and not an individual's interpretation.

 

[guest]

Re: No Comments :(

well courts do adhere to the constituion. the constitution is a moral basis for the penal code but not the total basis of the penal code. and so when it comes to making judgements etc, the judicial process has its own precedents and basis to work with.

having said that, there is no alternative. anglosaxon law is fine. when you only have circumstantial evidence, then you either give him a much reduced sentense or you acquit him depending on how good the circumstantial evidence is. hanging him has to be a strict no no. to think of it, delhi univ professor SAR geelani was also sentenced by the trial court to hang and then "ACQUITTED" by the high courts. this case was botched from start to end. and afzal guru everyone agrees was in kashmir when the parlaiment attack happened.

I agree that in the past there are many innocents convicted and many real criminals were let loose due to circumstantial evidence.

What is the alternative to Anglosaxon law in relation to circumstantial evidence? Can some one in the court use a moral judgement? or based on his view? or based on Public opinion?

I believe everyone in the court has to adhere to Constitution of the country. But interpretation can be different. That is why we have a Bench in special cases, where majority in the Bench decide and not an individual's interpretation.

 

[wadera]

India is truly shining .. shameless bast*rds hand this guy through a botched trial but the rapists will end up in a life sentence ...

What Afzal Guru said is true, this is blind nationalism ... shame on Indians

 

[Zionist Hindu]

Re: No Comments :(

this was a terrible decision by the supreme court. the case was piss-poor. no one even made a case that he was personally involved in parliament bombing at the level of participating in the event directly. this is the first time i guess in the history of anglosaxon law that a person has been sentenced to death on circumstantial evidence and for a case where even prosecution did not make a case of his direct particpation. very sad day.

personally I am against any kind of death sentence. I don't know about the exact nature of his involvent in terrorism. I thonk justice system in india to be relatively free from political influence. punishment should fit the crime. if there was enough circumstantial evidence that showed him to have direct link to the acts of terrorism then he got what he deserved. i am not a legalexpert.

 

[guest]

Re: No Comments :(

personally I am against any kind of death sentence. I don't know about the exact nature of his involvent in terrorism. I thonk justice system in india to be relatively free from political influence. punishment should fit the crime. if there was enough circumstantial evidence that showed him to have direct link to the acts of terrorism then he got what he deserved. i am not a legalexpert.

he was not at the crime scence. the allegation against him (which was purportedly proven) was that he assisted hose who attacked the parliament. and the case of this assistance was proved using circumstantial evidence. it is absurd to give some death penalty for this.

 

[Zionist Hindu]

Re: No Comments :(

he was not at the crime scence. the allegation against him (which was purportedly proven) was that he assisted hose who attacked the parliament. and the case of this assistance was proved using circumstantial evidence. it is absurd to give some death penalty for this.

now it looks like politically motivated decision which is quite sad and not good for the country........