'Emotional impact on society': Iran publicly executes man for raping, murdering child; victim's family called for it
I
ran on Saturday publicly executed a man convicted of raping and murdering a young girl in the northwestern city of Bukan, according to the judiciary's Mizan online news website.
The public execution took place at the request of the victim's family, who were involved in the legal proceedings. The man was sentenced to death in March, with the ruling later upheld by Iran's Supreme Court.
Naser Atabati, the provincial chief justice said, as quoted by Mizan, "at the request of the victim's family and citizens, due to the emotional impact the case had on society,'
While public executions in Iran are not routine, they are carried out in cases considered especially serious.
Under Iranian law, both rape and murder are punishable by death. According to human rights groups including Amnesty International, Iran ranks as the world's second-highest executioner after China.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
"Not Guilty": Supreme Court Acquits Man On Death Row After 11 Years In Jail
New Delhi: The Supreme Court in an important judgment today set aside the death sentence of Baljinder Kumar from Kapurthala, who has been in jail for over 11 years in murder cases of his wife, two toddlers and sister-in-law. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta concluded there were several deficiencies and contradictions in accounts of witnesses and evidence. "When at stake are human lives and the cost is blood, the matter needs to be dealt with utmost sincerity," the judgment said. The Supreme Court said that given the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot hold the accused guilty of the charged offence as his guilt has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court set aside and quashed the trial court's conviction and death sentence order as well as the high court order which affirmed it. Baljinder Kumar was accused of killing his family in 2013 over a dispute of Rs 35,000. Calling it a "rarest of the rare" case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the death penalty handed down to the man for killing his wife, two children and sister-in-law in Punjab's Phagwara area in 2013. However, the Supreme Court concluded there were several deficiencies in investigations and witness accounts which include contradictions and embellishments in key eyewitness testimonies, failure to conclusively link material objects to the crime, and investigative lapses leading to gaps in the evidentiary chain. All of these factors highlight the failure of the prosecution in meeting the legal threshold for a conviction, the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court said the trial court as well as the high court conveniently kept aside such contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses by holding that minor contradictions do not go to the root of a prosecution case. "We are unable to succumb to the view of categorizing the above discussed contradictions as minor," the Supreme Court said. Days before the murders, the convict had visited his mother-in-law Manjit Kaur and threatened to kill his wife and children who had left him over a dispute. An amount of Rs 35,000 was to be paid to Baljinder Kumar and his sister Rekha Rani by her former husband as part of their divorce settlement. Since Manjit Kaur arranged his sister's marriage, which did not work out, and also stood as a guarantor for the return of the money, it was said by the prosecution that Baljinder Kumar held a grudge against her as she failed to ensure the return of the money. The motive attributed by the prosecution to Baljinder Kumar was that his sister, Rekha Rani, was married to Haria. However, due to matrimonial dispute between the parties, the marriage was dissolved by divorce in presence of the panchayat, where Haria returned all the dowry items and also undertook to pay Rs 35,000 as maintenance to Rekha Rani. Manjit Kaur, the mother-in-law of Baljinder Kumar, stood as guarantor for Haria for returning the amount, and when such amount was not paid, it led to constant fights between Baljinder Kumar and his wife Seema Rani. The fight escalated to such an extent where Baljinder Kumar threatened to kill his wife and children if the money was not paid, and it also led to Seema Rani along with her children coming to her maternal home after she was thrashed by him.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Dharmasthala burial case: Investigation Officer will take call on exhuming bodies, say DK police
The Dakshina Kannada police said on Wednesday that the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Dharmasthala burial case will take a call on exhuming bodies at an appropriate stage during the course of the investigation. A police statement said that the bodies will be exhumed by following the due process of law. It said that as the investigation progresses, the officer will decide when to exhume bodies. The police said that the officer has sought the permission of the court to conduct brain mapping, fingerprint and narco analysis of the complainant witness, if the complainant agrees. The statement said that neither the complainant witness nor his advocates have informed the officer that a petition related to the same case had been filed before the Supreme Court. But the police have learnt that a petition was submitted before the apex court. 'This information will have to be verified,' the statement said. The police said that intelligence inputs suggest that there is a possibility of the complainant witness going incommunicado once the exhuming (of bodies) gets over. Hence reports are doing the rounds that there is a hurry to exhume the bodies without following the due process of law. The police are verifying these possibilities and the same has been communicated to the advocates representing the complainant witness. On July 3, a person filed a complaint with the Dharmasthala police claiming that he was forced to bury the bodies of many persons who were allegedly raped and murdered in Dharmasthala. He claimed that he buried the bodies during his tenure as a sanitation worker between 1995 and December 2014. After taking permission from a court, the Dharmasthala police registered a case on July 4 for an offence under Section 211 (a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. On July 11, the complainant produced some of the skeletal remains of a body that he claimed to have exhumed on his own, before the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belthangady court, and gave a statement regarding the same.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Power to proceed against someone appearing guilty must be exercised cautiously: SC
The Supreme Court has cautioned against the casual use of Section 319 of the CrPC, emphasizing it should serve justice, not harassment. This ruling came during a case concerning the summoning of individuals not initially accused but implicated by evidence. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the power to proceed against someone appearing guilty of an offence ought to be exercised with "utmost caution" and not as a tool to harass.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a case concerning Section 319 of the erstwhile 319 deals with the power to proceed against persons appearing to be guilty of an bench said the provision empowered the court to proceed against any person, even if not cited as an accused, based on evidence collected during the inquiry or trial revealing the complicity of such person to be arrayed as an accused."The power to be exercised, needless to add, is to be with utmost caution and not in a casual, callous or cavalier manner – for the same is only to advance the cause of justice and not be a tool to harass the individual or result into an abuse of the process of law," it apex court's verdict came on an appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court passed July last high court quashed the summons issued by a trial court in Kaushambi against a person under Section 319 of the CrPC in a 2017 murder case The top court said the power under Section 319 had to be invoked only upon the satisfaction of cogent material brought on record, necessitating such noted certain statutory requisites for summoning any person not being the accused, including the person committing the offence and their complicity being revealed from the evidence collected during inquiry or bench also enumerated the principles which the trial court ought to follow while exercising power under section 319."This provision is a facet of that area of law which gives protection to victims and society at large, ensuring that the perpetrators of crime should not escape the force of law," it bench said it was the court's duty not to let the guilty get away trial court, the top court said, was not powerless to summon a person not named in the FIR or chargesheet and they could be impleaded if the evidence inculpated with the case at hand, the bench said the evidence from three alleged eye-witnesses prima facie suggested the complicity of the person who was summoned by the trial court under section 319 of allowing the appeal filed by the complainant of the case, the bench set aside the high court verdict and restored the trial court's summoning bench directed the parties to appear before the trial court on August 28 and ordered the trial's completion within 18 months.
