Jump to content

Devinder Singh Bhullar will hang: SC rejects mercy plea

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I agree , but its easy to say that when the rope is not around our necks (no offense). plus we need to save this heera enough have died!!

Lets read the facts about Prof. Sahib's case: 1) Out of 133 witnesses, not even one has recognised Bhai Sahib. 2) The confession of Bhai has his 'Thumb print'. Note: He is well qualified to sign.


they want fansi di saza nu life vich convert karo

coz badal says he want his punjab remain peaceful as its now

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can help by contacting this organisation.

http://www.prisonerwelfare.com/prisoner-case-studies/davinderpal-singh-bhullar/Davinderpal Singh Bhullar

September 16, 2010 By admin 12 Comments

◾Latest News

◾Prof. Devinderpal singh Bhullar- Fact Sheet


◾How you can help








Davinderpal Singh Bullar

The sentence of death was upheld in August 2002 by majority of the Supreme Court of India, on 42 year old Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar. The case against him is based on an unsubstantiated confession allegedly obtained under torture and threat of death. Despite this the two judges who upheld the death sentence have found this confession admissible. The presiding judge of the three-judge bench however acquitted the accused, finding that he was not guilty of participating in the 1993 car bomb attack in New Delhi targeting the then Youth Congress leader M S Bitta and too much doubt remained on the authenticity of the alleged ‘confession’ to the police. However, in stark contrast, the other two judges convicted him arguing, extraordinarily that proof “beyond reasonable doubt” should be a “guideline, not a fetish.” And that procedure is only “a handmaiden and not the mistress of law.”

Virtually every legal system around the world is based on ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ and respects procedures to obtain ‘safe’ evidence. The Supreme Court of India seems to have departed from these in the most important of all cases, that of death penalty, thus setting a new precedent for Indian law. While the leading Judge, Justice M B Shah concentrated on the facts of the case in acquitting him, Justice A Pasayat chose political rhetoric to find Davinderpal Singh guilty, resulting in contradictory arguments and judgements. Justice Shah went on to say that Davinderpal Singh could not be found guilty of conspiracy as this would require by definition that he conspired with another and as others named in the confession statement are acquitted, it is impossible for him to conspire with himself. He was also not convinced by the authenticity of the confession. Contrary to procedure, the confession was neither handwritten nor recorded but typed on a computer on which it was not saved.

In cases of a split decision, the death penalty is not handed down. However, while Mr Bhullar’s case was being considered by the Supreme Court, Kashmiri militants attacked the Lokh Sabha (the lower house of the Indian parliament) on 13th December 2001.Many observers believe that heightened rhetoric about the threat of “terrorism” in India and a hardening of government views and policies may have influenced the judges’ decision.

Case facts and commentary:


Mr Bhullar has been in prison for the last 12 years since being arrested upon arrival after being deported to India following an unsuccessful asylum application in Germany in January 1995. Mr Bhuller whose best friends were killed and father was disappeared by the Punjab police in 1991, and whose family was repeatedly harassed, went to Germany in December 1994 to seek political asylum. The immigration authorities returned him to India but in his absence a Higher German court overruled the decision.

Mr Bhullar was arrested, detained and tried under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), which is no longer in force. The United Nations condemned these laws as “disturbing and completely unacceptable.”


The case against him is based on information that is highly dubious. No corroborative evidence has been offered by the prosecution. None of the 133 witnesses produced by the prosecution identified him, many witnesses claimed he was not the man they had seen.


On being handed over to the Indian police in Delhi by airline staff, Mr Bhullar was taken into detention. The police allege that he volunteered a confession, which was typed on a computer while Mr Bhullar spoke but according to the authorities the secretary forgot to save the confession on the computer. TADA requires the confession to be handwritten or an audio/video record of it to be kept. The authenticity of typed confessions is doubted in the courts.

Mr Bhullar argues that he was made to sign on blank pieces of paper, which were later filled by a statement written and typed in by the police, under threat that if he did not sign he would be terminated by the Punjab Police in a false encounter, which is a very real threat. His own father had been disappeared by the Punjab police. Amnesty International has stated “Since 1983…scores of those arrested have been tortured to death or have otherwise been deliberately and unlawfully killed in Custody…while others have simply “disappeared”, the security forces refusing to acknowledge that they had been arrested.”

Court Proceeding

Mr Bhullar was then taken before an ‘executive’ magistrate (appointee of the government). TADA requires the confession document be sent to the magistrate before appearance of the person so that the magistrate is in a position to examine it. The confession document was not sent to the magistrate nevertheless the magistrate went on to ask him if he had made the confession. According to Mr Bhullar, he was forewarned by the police that he would be eliminated by the Punjab police if he said anything other than yes. The Delhi police transferred him to the infamous Punjab police for 2 months. The Punjab police is notorious for extra-judicial executions and torture. The Supreme Court itself has granted people the protection of the Central Reserve Police Force, against the Punjab police.

Mr Bhullar wrote to the court at the first opportunity of release from Punjab police custody to judicial custody, claiming that the ‘confession’ was involuntary and obtained under torture and fear of death. There has been no recovery of any incriminating evidence against Mr Bhullar and there has been no identification by any individual of the accused in connection with this case.

Mr Bhullar was examined by a police assigned medical doctor. Although a highly educated man, Mr Bhullar’s medical examination document is co-signed by him by a thumb print. Upon his alleged confession Mr Daya Singh Lahoria a second defendant in the case was acquitted because the only evidence against him was Mr Bhullar’s confession which could not be relied upon in the case.


TADA was a controversial law that was not only contrary to international law, but considered to be unconstitutional by some authorities. Although allowed to lapse under international pressure, cases predating its lapse are still tried. TADA was strongly condemned by the United Nations and virtually every international institute that examined it. In it the burden of proof is transferred to the accused. Designated courts under TADA are the only courts in which a confession made to a police officer is admissible evidence, this deviates from the Indian Evidence Act sections 25 and 26, under which confessions made to police officers are not admissible. The procedures laid out in TADA resulted in 76,000 detentions, less than 1.8% of which actually reached conviction, despite this highly extraordinary rate of failure, the Supreme Court of India has relaxed these procedures further.

Despite being a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, which is yet to be ratified by India, it is well known that torture remains a pervasive and daily practice in every one of India’s 25 states, as acknowledged by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the State Department (US). This was made even more apparent by the statement of Nigel Rodley (UN Special Rapportuer on Torture) that “torture is endemic in India.” The Chahal case brought this very fact to the attention of the European Courts where the Judges unanimously considered that human rights violations in India were gross enough to stop Mr Chahal being sent back there by British authorities saying that while they respected the assurances of the Indian authorities to treat him according to law, they could not rely on them.

In order to come to a safe decision in any criminal case the court must find the facts, evidence and witnesses collaborating beyond reasonable doubt, however these most basic legal rules have been suspended by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mr Bhullar.

While he was waiting for the death sentence, Mr Bhullar was convicted of other charges by the Punjab Police. However on the 1 December 2006 in the Chandigarh and Haryana High Court the judge acquitted Mr Bhullar on the basis of lack of evidence. Sh R.S. Baswana Addional Sessions Judge held that their was no evidence on file to link the accused with the other alleged crimes and despite the fact that the prosecution had 15 years to gather evidence against Mr Bhullar, they were unable to produce evidence linking Mr Bhullar to the case against him.

Irrespective of this Mr Bhullar has been sentenced to death by execution. Mr Bhullar’s only hope of clemency now lies with the Indian President, A J P Abdul Kalam, under article 72 of the Constitution of India.

Filed Under: Prisoner Case Studies

Link to post
Share on other sites

We’ll examine demand for clemency to Bhullar: Shinde


Home Minister Shinde

Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde on Tuesday announced that the government would examine the demand for clemency to 1993 blast convict Devender Pal Singh Bhullar.

Mr. Shinde told journalists here that the Centre would look into the plea of Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal. Mr. Badal met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday, seeking clemency to Bhullar, whose plea for commutation of his death sentence was dismissed by the Supreme Court last week. Mr. Badal warned that Bhullar’s execution was an emotive issue and it could create law and order problems in Punjab and other places.

However, government sources hinted that a medical board might be constituted to examine the health condition of Bhullar, who is reportedly mentally sick. Apart from his poor health conditions, clemency-seekers have been citing the split Supreme Court judgment in the case to get relief for the convict. In his memorandum to the Prime Minister, Mr. Badal said “there is legal and constitutional requirement for putting the [death penalty] case beyond all reasonable doubt. This was clearly not done in the case of Bhullar.”

Notably, over the years, several MPs and Sikh leaders, besides leaders from Europe and the U.S., had pleaded for granting clemency to Bhullar. But the government has remained firm on not giving any relief to him.

In his recommendation on Bhullar’s mercy petition forwarded to the President in 2011, the former Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, wrote: “This is a case of terrorism and the conviction is under the TADA…There is a dissenting judgment of one learned Judge who felt that the ‘accused deserved to be acquitted’ and, in any event, the punishment of death should be modified to one of life imprisonment. I am of the view that cases of terrorism do not deserve any mercy or compassion…I would, therefore, recommend that the sentence of death be confirmed.”


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany urged former India President Patil for mercy
JSingh April 16, 2013Asia


New Delhi: In a top level inter action with india, the German government said it would not have deported death row convict Devinderpal Singh Bhullar from Frankfurt in 1995 if it knew that death penalty was on the table it has now emerged.

According to official information released by the Rashtrapati Bhawan under the Right To information Act, the president of germany wrote to then indian President Pratibha Pratil expressing regret at Bhullar’s impending hanging after the plea for presidential mercy was rejected.

Germany had appealed to Patil “to ensure that the death penalty was not carried out”, and the name of its those who had filed mercy petitions on BHullar’s behalf.

“The German President stated that they deported Bhullar since they were unaware that he might face execution/death penalty in india, contrary to German legal positions and practice,”states the official file noting provided to RTI acrivist Subhash chandra Agrawal.

“The German President wrote that his counrty and the European Union advocates worldwide abolition of the death penalty.” the document states.

Bhullar was arrested at frankfurt airport in 1995 on charges of travelling on a fake passport and was deported back to india. A local Frankfurt court had declared his deportation illegal in 1997.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UK Sikhs can send the signed copies to their MPs. What can the US and Canada based Sikhs do? Who should we send these copies to?

Our local Sangat would like to help in any way they can.

Contact Sikhs for Justice they are US based and write to your elected officials. The US Congress members and Senators


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some support pouring in from Tamilians ( because it affects te death penalty for accused in Rajiv Gandhi's death). I feel its high for SIkhs to join hands with their tamilian sympathizers and others who oppose death penalty. I saw a brief discussion on NDTV which surprisingly focussed on the unfortunate aspect of India's insistence on death penalty and also focussed on how the 2014 India polls are hastening the execution in india.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Public-prosecutor-turns-surprise-ally-for-Bhullar/articleshow/19606737.cms

Public prosecutor turns surprise ally for Bhullar

Manoj Mitta TNN | Apr 18, 2013, 04.15 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Even as the home ministry is examining the Punjab government's plea to commute his death penalty, Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar has received support from an unlikely quarter: the special public prosecutor who had appeared against him in the Supreme Court in 2002.

Though two of the three judges on the Supreme Court bench upheld his arguments, senior advocate Anoop G Chaudhari said that he found himself agreeing with the dissenting verdict delivered by the presiding judge, M B Shah, who had actually acquitted Bhullar.

"Surprising as it may sound, I believe that Shah was right in not accepting my submissions in support of the trial court's decision to convict Bhullar in a terror case, entirely on the basis of his confessional statement to the police," Chaudhari told TOI. "Shah refused to acquiesce to the Delhi police's presumption that they had a lot of margin for shoddy investigation because of the involvement of terror."

A former advocate general of Madhya Pradesh, Chaudhari also said that it was "most inappropriate" for the majority verdict, delivered by Justice Arijit Pasayat, to have awarded death sentence to Bhullar despite the acquittal by a member of the same bench.

In any event, this "judicial error", he said, should have been taken by the home ministry as a "strong ground" for commuting the death penalty, when it made its recommendation to the President on Bhullar's mercy petition in 2011. "Did the home ministry think that the acquittal by a Supreme Court judge was meaningless?" Chaudhari asked.

But how could he be saying all these things in Bhullar's favor, given his own role in the case? "After the judgment is delivered, I read it as a student of law and not a lawyer who appeared for one or the other party," Chaudhari said. "If I can't detach myself from the case and appreciate the judgment in its correct perspective, then I won't be honest to my profession and my conscience".

One of the major infirmities in the prosecution's case pointed out by Shah was the failure of the police to find any corroboration for Bhullar's confessional statement to them, even he had retracted it. "When Shah asked me about this lacuna during the hearings, I said that I could only argue what was on record and I could not step into the shoes of the investigating agency and explain why they had not taken the trouble of finding any corroborative evidence," Chaudhari said.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use