Sarabjit Singh's mercy petition quashed

simplyme · Jun 24th, 2009, 04:27 AM

Sarabjit Singh’s review petition quashed following failure of lawyer to attend

Islamabad, June 24 (ANI): The Pakistan Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the review petition filed by Sarabjit Singh challenging his death sentence, thus maintaining the death sentence awarded earlier.

According to The News, a three-member bench headed by Justice Raja Fayyaz dismissed Singh’s mercy plea after brief hearings for two days.

Meanwhile, Singh’s lawyer, Rana Abdul Hameed has admitted to lapses in mounting the defence in his case.

Hameed said he was not able to reach the court on time and missed the proceedings, which worked against the case and an ex-parte order was passed by the court.

Pakistan has so far refused to comment on the verdict.

-------------------------------------------

Is this some kind of a joke. A lawyer who is not able reach the court on time while defending such a case. If he did not want to appear for the accused he should have refused to be his lawyer. He had no qualms in taking the money from the family of Sarabjit as fees. I was just watching a news channel and he was mentioning that he had deputed somebody else to appear and that somebody had different cases. Is this how the justice system works in Pakistan. Seriously guys I really dont know if I should call that a justice system. It is worse than a Kangaroo Court.

CM · Jun 24th, 2009, 04:35 AM

This is what happens when you are a terrorist.

simplyme · Jun 24th, 2009, 04:43 AM

^^

Please understand I am talking about the justice system. A lawyer who has no qualms in accepting the fees to be the lawyer and then publicly admitting that he put up a weak case. Way to go...

janab-e-ali · Jun 24th, 2009, 05:08 AM

Indians have the audacity to comment on anyone's justice system????

Mohammad Afzal didn't even have a lawyer for most of his case. The Indian supreme court admitted that there was no convincing evidence against him...that there was no evidence he belonged to any militant organization, and that whatever evidence existed against him was circumstantial at best. The basically went on to say that the Indian public's bloodlust would only be assuaged by his death, so they rejected his appeal. I believe the exact quote was:

"The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation, and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender."

Talk about a kangaroo court system!

vineshvk · Jun 24th, 2009, 05:11 AM

^really

, then show me the full court ruling. If he is innocent and the court is convinced then I dont think he can be in death raw for some time.

simplyme · Jun 24th, 2009, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janab-e-ali

Indians have the audacity to comment on anyone's justice system????

Mohammad Afzal didn't even have a lawyer for most of his case. The Indian supreme court admitted that there was no convincing evidence against him...that there was no evidence he belonged to any militant organization, and that whatever evidence existed against him was circumstantial at best. The basically went on to say that the Indian public's bloodlust would only be assuaged by his death, so they rejected his appeal. I believe the exact quote was:

"The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation, and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender."

Talk about a kangaroo court system!

I am not talking about the Indian justice system Please open a separate thread to discuss the same. I am talking about the lawyer who shamelessly admitted that he had built up a weak case and did not bother to appear in the court.

janab-e-ali · Jun 24th, 2009, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vineshvk

^really

, then show me the full court ruling. If he is innocent and the court is convinced then I dont think he can be in death raw for some time.

Quote:

For instance, there is a major discrepancy between the Delhi police's version of the time and place of Afzal's arrest, and the Jammu and Kashmir police records. The police failed to establish Afzal's critical or pivotal role in the conspiracy. Indeed, they did not even identify the five attackers, who were shot dead.

Afzal confessed to having helped the attackers' "leader" Mohammed to come to Delhi from Srinagar and purchase a car used in the attack. But Afzal was not shown to be the mastermind or chief conspirator.

Besides his own testimony, which the Supreme Court says cannot be relied upon, circumstantial evidence of Afzal's involvement in conspiracy hinges on the recovery of explosives from his house, and most crucially, on the records of cellphone calls to the five attackers.

However, the explosives recovery record is not watertight. The police could not explain why they broke into Afzal's house while he was in jail - when his landlord had the key.

The cellphone record traced several calls from the five men to a particular Delhi number. The police allegedly impounded the instrument from Afzal while arresting him in Srinagar. The instrument had no SIM card. So the only identity mark was its machine number, which is unique to each instrument.

But how did the police discover the machine number? There are only two ways: open the instrument, or dial a code and have the number displayed. But the officer who certified the recovery said on oath that he neither opened nor operated the instrument.

Besides, the testimonies on the date of purchase of the phone with a new SIM card (December 4) and its first recorded operation (November 6) did not match. The evidence is certainly not firm enough to award Afzal the severest possible punishment.

Equally important is the legal point that during his trial, Afzal was not allowed to have a defence lawyer of his choice and was forced to cross-examine witnesses himself.

RIGHTS-INDIA: Death Penalty Debate Revived - IPS ipsnews.net

CM · Jun 24th, 2009, 06:04 AM

Where did he say he put a weak case? What he said he was late. Amazing, a lawyer has never been late for a case in history right?

vineshvk · Jun 24th, 2009, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janab-e-ali

RIGHTS-INDIA: Death Penalty Debate Revived - IPS ipsnews.net

I want the full ruling, not some half baked truth coming out with the comments from editor in a news paper.

Shamraz Khan · Jun 24th, 2009, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplyme

^^

Please understand I am talking about the justice system. A lawyer who has no qualms in accepting the fees to be the lawyer and then publicly admitting that he put up a weak case. Way to go...

Fee? From what I know he was doing volunteer working for him.

BTW, its common tactic for lawyers not showing up on time when they know that they cannot win a case or a judgment would go against them. Once a judgment goes against them by default they start to complain and keep dragging on the cases.

BanTaleban · Jun 24th, 2009, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM

Where did he say he put a weak case? What he said he was late. Amazing, a lawyer has never been late for a case in history right?

an ex parte judgement against a guy in the govt custody? how is that even possible? you mean the givt doesn't produce the guy from jail or the defence lawyer doesn't show up and the so called judge passes sentence? I don't understand!

If this is true you guys have gone from banana republic to kangaroo court to junglee rules

CM · Jun 24th, 2009, 06:45 AM

When you are a terrorist be happy you see the daylight of court.

BanTaleban · Jun 24th, 2009, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM

Where did he say he put a weak case? What he said he was late. Amazing, a lawyer has never been late for a case in history right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanTaleban

an ex parte judgement against a guy in the govt custody? how is that even possible? you mean the givt doesn't produce the guy from jail or the defence lawyer doesn't show up and the so called judge passes sentence? I don't understand!

If this is true you guys have gone from banana republic to kangaroo court to junglee rules

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM

When you are a terrorist be happy you see the daylight of court.

come on dude. is this how you debate?

simplyme · Jun 24th, 2009, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamraz Khan

Fee? From what I know he was doing volunteer working for him.

BTW, its common tactic for lawyers not showing up on time when they know that they cannot win a case or a judgment would go against them. Once a judgment goes against them by default they start to complain and keep dragging on the cases.

I heard the family on TV stating that the lawyer had taken Rs One lakh from them.

Shamraz I expected better from you. Lawyers not showing up when he knows that there would not be a legal recourse if an exparte order is passed happens only in Kangaroo courts...Here they cannot drag the case any longer. Poor Sarabjit. He has already spent more than a life sentence in Pakistan and now this...

simplyme · Jun 24th, 2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM

Where did he say he put a weak case? What he said he was late. Amazing, a lawyer has never been late for a case in history right?

Please read the article and understand what is said in the article.

Amazing the lawyer was late twice inspite of the court directing him to be present. And now what legal recourse this poor guy has.

DD · Jun 24th, 2009, 09:52 AM

Why the hell are we wasting food on this Singh who has killed 14 and injured 56, enough already, execute and send body to India to be buried.

simplyme · Jun 24th, 2009, 10:08 AM

^^

If he is guilty punish him, but dont make a mockery of the justice system...

DD · Jun 24th, 2009, 12:24 PM

^Dude, look into your own backyard b4 talking big. Lawyers threatened to death for taking up case of Ajmal.

Arleitter · Jun 24th, 2009, 12:26 PM

.................

diwana · Jun 24th, 2009, 01:21 PM

Has it been verified that laywer was even late?

Does it mean he is not guilty?

Same article says he admitted to the crimes.

Indian govt. is now pleading Pakistan to not punish him on the 'basis of humanity'. They agree he is a criminal.

The discussion of justice system good or not should be over by now.