News Analysis India

Tag: LeT

  • Jury finds Ed Sheeran didn’t copy Marvin Gaye classic

    By Associated Press

    NEW YORK: British singer Ed Sheeran didn’t steal key components of Marvin Gaye’s classic 1970s tune “Let’s Get It On” to create his hit song “Thinking Out Loud,” a jury said with a trial verdict Thursday, prompting Sheeran to joke later that he won’t have to follow through on his threat to quit music.

    The emotions of an epic copyright fight that stretched across most of the last decade spilt out as soon as the seven-person jury revealed its verdict after over two hours of deliberations.

    Sheeran, 32, briefly dropped his face into his hands in relief before standing to hug his attorney, Ilene Farkas. As jurors left the courtroom in front of him, Sheeran smiled, nodded his head at several of them, and mouthed the words: “Thank you.” Later, he posed for a hallway photograph with a juror who lingered behind.

    He also approached plaintiff Kathryn Townsend Griffin, the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-created the 1973 soul classic with Gaye and had testified. They spoke for about 10 minutes, hugging and smiling and, at one point, clasping their hands together.

    Sheeran later addressed reporters outside the courthouse, revisiting his claim made during the trial that he would consider quitting songwriting if he lost the case.

    “I am obviously very happy with the outcome of this case, and it looks like I’m not going to have to retire from my day job, after all. But at the same time, I am unbelievably frustrated that baseless claims like this are allowed to go to court at all,” the singer said, reading from a prepared statement.

    He also said he missed his grandmother’s funeral in Ireland because of the trial, and that he “will never get that time back.”

    ALSO READ | Ed Sheeran announces new album Subtract, reveals wife developed tumour in pregnancy

    Inside the courthouse after the verdict, Griffin said she was relieved. “I’m just glad it’s over,” she said of the trial. “We can be friends.”

    She said she was pleased Sheeran approached her. “It showed me who he was,” Griffin said.

    She said her copyright lawsuit wasn’t personal but she wanted to follow through on a promise to her father to protect his intellectual property.

    A juror, Sophia Neis, told reporters afterward that there was no immediate consensus when deliberations began.

    “Everyone had opinions going in. Both sides had advocated, said Neis, 23. “There was a lot of back and forth.”

    The verdict capped a two-week trial that featured a courtroom performance by Sheeran as the singer insisted, sometimes angrily, that the trial was a threat to all musicians who create their own music.

    Sheeran sat with his legal team throughout the trial, defending himself against the lawsuit by Townsend’s heirs, who had said “Thinking Out Loud” had so many similarities to “Let’s Get It On” that it violated the song’s copyright protection.

    It was not the first court victory for a singer whose musical style draws from classic soul, pop and R&B, making him a target for copyright lawsuits. A year ago, Sheeran won a U.K. copyright battle over his 2017 hit “Shape of You” and then decried what he labelled a “culture” of baseless lawsuits that force settlements from artists eager to avoid a trial’s expense.

    Outside court, Sheeran said he doesn’t want to be taken advantage of.

    “I am just a guy with a guitar who loves writing music for people to enjoy,” he said. “I am not and will never allow myself to be a piggy bank for anyone to shake.”

    At the trial’s start, attorney Ben Crump told jurors on behalf of the Townsend heirs that Sheeran himself sometimes performed the two songs together. The jury saw the video of a concert in Switzerland in which Sheeran can be heard segueing on stage between “Let’s Get It On” and “Thinking Out Loud.” Crump said it was “smoking gun” proof Sheeran stole from the famous tune.

    In her closing argument on Wednesday, Farkas said Crump’s “smoking gun was shooting blanks.”

    She said the only common elements between the two songs were “basic to the tool kit of all songwriters” and “the scaffolding on which all songwriting is built.”

    “They did not copy it. Not consciously. Not unconsciously. Not at all,” Farkas said.

    When Sheeran testified over two days for the defense, he repeatedly picked up a guitar resting behind him on the witness stand to demonstrate how he seamlessly creates “mashups” of two or three songs during concerts to “spice it up a bit” for his sizeable crowds.

    The English pop star’s cheerful attitude on display under questioning from his attorney all but vanished under cross-examination.

    “When you write songs, somebody comes after you,” Sheeran testified, saying the case was being closely watched by others in the industry.

    He insisted that he and the song’s co-writer — Amy Wadge — stole nothing from “Let’s Get it On.”

    Townsend’s heirs said in their lawsuit that “Thinking Out Loud” had “striking similarities” and “overt common elements” that made it obvious that it had copied “Let’s Get It On,” a song that has been featured in numerous films and commercials and scored hundreds of millions of streams spins and radio plays in the past half-century.

    Sheeran’s song, which came out in 2014, was a hit, winning a Grammy for Song of the Year.

    Sheeran’s label, Atlantic Records, and Sony/ATV Music Publishing were also named as defendants in the “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuit, but the focus of the trial was Sheeran.

    Wadge, who was not a defendant, testified on his behalf and hugged Sheeran after the verdict.

    Gaye was killed in 1984 at age 44, shot by his father as he tried to intervene in a fight between his parents. He had been a Motown superstar since the 1960s, although his songs released in the 1970s made him a generational musical giant.

    Townsend, who also wrote the 1958 R&B doo-wop hit “For Your Love,” was a singer, songwriter and lawyer who died in 2003. Griffin, his daughter, testified during the trial that she thought Sheeran was “a great artist with a great future.”

    NEW YORK: British singer Ed Sheeran didn’t steal key components of Marvin Gaye’s classic 1970s tune “Let’s Get It On” to create his hit song “Thinking Out Loud,” a jury said with a trial verdict Thursday, prompting Sheeran to joke later that he won’t have to follow through on his threat to quit music.

    The emotions of an epic copyright fight that stretched across most of the last decade spilt out as soon as the seven-person jury revealed its verdict after over two hours of deliberations.

    Sheeran, 32, briefly dropped his face into his hands in relief before standing to hug his attorney, Ilene Farkas. As jurors left the courtroom in front of him, Sheeran smiled, nodded his head at several of them, and mouthed the words: “Thank you.” Later, he posed for a hallway photograph with a juror who lingered behind.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    He also approached plaintiff Kathryn Townsend Griffin, the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-created the 1973 soul classic with Gaye and had testified. They spoke for about 10 minutes, hugging and smiling and, at one point, clasping their hands together.

    Sheeran later addressed reporters outside the courthouse, revisiting his claim made during the trial that he would consider quitting songwriting if he lost the case.

    “I am obviously very happy with the outcome of this case, and it looks like I’m not going to have to retire from my day job, after all. But at the same time, I am unbelievably frustrated that baseless claims like this are allowed to go to court at all,” the singer said, reading from a prepared statement.

    He also said he missed his grandmother’s funeral in Ireland because of the trial, and that he “will never get that time back.”

    ALSO READ | Ed Sheeran announces new album Subtract, reveals wife developed tumour in pregnancy

    Inside the courthouse after the verdict, Griffin said she was relieved. “I’m just glad it’s over,” she said of the trial. “We can be friends.”

    She said she was pleased Sheeran approached her. “It showed me who he was,” Griffin said.

    She said her copyright lawsuit wasn’t personal but she wanted to follow through on a promise to her father to protect his intellectual property.

    A juror, Sophia Neis, told reporters afterward that there was no immediate consensus when deliberations began.

    “Everyone had opinions going in. Both sides had advocated, said Neis, 23. “There was a lot of back and forth.”

    The verdict capped a two-week trial that featured a courtroom performance by Sheeran as the singer insisted, sometimes angrily, that the trial was a threat to all musicians who create their own music.

    Sheeran sat with his legal team throughout the trial, defending himself against the lawsuit by Townsend’s heirs, who had said “Thinking Out Loud” had so many similarities to “Let’s Get It On” that it violated the song’s copyright protection.

    It was not the first court victory for a singer whose musical style draws from classic soul, pop and R&B, making him a target for copyright lawsuits. A year ago, Sheeran won a U.K. copyright battle over his 2017 hit “Shape of You” and then decried what he labelled a “culture” of baseless lawsuits that force settlements from artists eager to avoid a trial’s expense.

    Outside court, Sheeran said he doesn’t want to be taken advantage of.

    “I am just a guy with a guitar who loves writing music for people to enjoy,” he said. “I am not and will never allow myself to be a piggy bank for anyone to shake.”

    At the trial’s start, attorney Ben Crump told jurors on behalf of the Townsend heirs that Sheeran himself sometimes performed the two songs together. The jury saw the video of a concert in Switzerland in which Sheeran can be heard segueing on stage between “Let’s Get It On” and “Thinking Out Loud.” Crump said it was “smoking gun” proof Sheeran stole from the famous tune.

    In her closing argument on Wednesday, Farkas said Crump’s “smoking gun was shooting blanks.”

    She said the only common elements between the two songs were “basic to the tool kit of all songwriters” and “the scaffolding on which all songwriting is built.”

    “They did not copy it. Not consciously. Not unconsciously. Not at all,” Farkas said.

    When Sheeran testified over two days for the defense, he repeatedly picked up a guitar resting behind him on the witness stand to demonstrate how he seamlessly creates “mashups” of two or three songs during concerts to “spice it up a bit” for his sizeable crowds.

    The English pop star’s cheerful attitude on display under questioning from his attorney all but vanished under cross-examination.

    “When you write songs, somebody comes after you,” Sheeran testified, saying the case was being closely watched by others in the industry.

    He insisted that he and the song’s co-writer — Amy Wadge — stole nothing from “Let’s Get it On.”

    Townsend’s heirs said in their lawsuit that “Thinking Out Loud” had “striking similarities” and “overt common elements” that made it obvious that it had copied “Let’s Get It On,” a song that has been featured in numerous films and commercials and scored hundreds of millions of streams spins and radio plays in the past half-century.

    Sheeran’s song, which came out in 2014, was a hit, winning a Grammy for Song of the Year.

    Sheeran’s label, Atlantic Records, and Sony/ATV Music Publishing were also named as defendants in the “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuit, but the focus of the trial was Sheeran.

    Wadge, who was not a defendant, testified on his behalf and hugged Sheeran after the verdict.

    Gaye was killed in 1984 at age 44, shot by his father as he tried to intervene in a fight between his parents. He had been a Motown superstar since the 1960s, although his songs released in the 1970s made him a generational musical giant.

    Townsend, who also wrote the 1958 R&B doo-wop hit “For Your Love,” was a singer, songwriter and lawyer who died in 2003. Griffin, his daughter, testified during the trial that she thought Sheeran was “a great artist with a great future.”

  • Ed Sheeran’s 2014 hit ‘Thinking Out Loud’, Marvin Gaye’s classic soul to begin copyright trial

    By Associated Press

    NEW YORK: Jury selection and opening statements are set to begin Monday in a trial that mashes up Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” with Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On.”

    The heirs of Ed Townsend, Gaye’s co-writer of the 1973 soul classic, sued Sheeran, alleging the English pop star’s hit 2014 tune has “striking similarities” to “Let’s Get It On” and “overt common elements” that violate their copyright.

    The lawsuit filed in 2017 has finally made it to a trial that is expected to last a week in the Manhattan federal courtroom of 95-year-old Judge Louis L. Stanton. Sheeran, 32, is among the witnesses expected to testify.

    “Let’s Get It On” is the quintessential, sexy slow jam that’s been heard in countless films and commercials and garnered hundreds of millions of streams, spins and radio plays over the past 50 years.

    “Thinking Out Loud,” which won a Grammy for song of the year, is a much more marital take on love and sex.

    While the jury will hear the recordings of both songs, probably many times, their lyrics — and vibes — are legally insignificant. Jurors are supposed to only consider the raw elements of melody, harmony and rhythm that make up the composition of “Let’s Get It On,” as documented on sheet music filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    Sheeran’s attorneys have said the songs’ undeniable structural symmetry points only to the foundations of popular music.

    “The two songs share versions of a similar and unprotectable chord progression that was freely available to all songwriters,” they said in a court filing.

    Townsend family attorneys pointed out in the lawsuit that artists including Boyz II Men have performed seamless mashups of the two songs, and that even Sheeran himself has segued into “Let’s Get It On” during live performances of “Thinking Out Loud.”

    They sought to play a potentially damning YouTube video of one such Sheeran performance for the jury at trial. Stanton denied their motion to include it, but said he would reconsider it after he sees other evidence that’s presented.

    Gaye’s estate is not involved in the case, though it will inevitably have echoes of their successful lawsuit against Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and T.I. over the resemblance of their 2013 hit “Blurred Lines” to Gaye’s 1977 “Got to Give it Up.”

    A jury awarded Gaye’s heirs $7.4 million at trial — later trimmed by a judge to $5.3 million — making it among the most significant copyright cases in recent decades.Sheeran’s label Atlantic Records and Sony/ATV Music Publishing are also named as defendants in the

    “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuit. Generally, plaintiffs in copyright lawsuits cast a wide net in naming defendants, though a judge can eliminate any names deemed inappropriate. In this case, however, Sheeran’s co-writer on the song, Amy Wadge, was never named.

    Townsend, who also wrote the 1958 R&B doo-wop hit “For Your Love,” was a singer, songwriter and lawyer. He died in 2003. Kathryn Townsend Griffin, his daughter, is the plaintiff leading the lawsuit.

    Already a Motown superstar in the 1960s before his more adult 1970s output made him a generational musical giant, Gaye was killed in 1984 at age 44, shot by his father as he tried to intervene in a fight between his parents.

    Major artists are often hit with lawsuits alleging song-stealing, but nearly all settle before trial — as Taylor Swift recently did over “Shake it Off,” ending a lawsuit that lasted years longer and came closer to trial than most other cases.

    But Sheeran — whose musical style drawing from classic soul, pop and R&B has made him a target for copyright lawsuits — has shown a willingness to go to trial before. A year ago, he won a U.K. copyright battle over his 2017 hit “Shape of You,” then slammed what he described as a “culture” of baseless lawsuits intended to squeeze money out of artists eager to avoid the expense of a trial.

    “I feel like claims like this are way too common now and have become a culture where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court, even if there is no basis for the claim,” Sheeran said in a video posted on Twitter after the verdict. “It’s really damaging to the songwriting industry.”

    The “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuit also invokes one of the most common tropes in American and British music since the earliest days of rock ‘n’ roll, R&B and hip-hop: a young white artist seemingly appropriating the work of an older Black artist — accusations that were also levied at Elvis Presley and The Beatles, whose music drew on that of Black forerunners.

    “Mr. Sheeran blatantly took a Black artist’s music who he doesn’t view as worthy as compensation,” Ben Crump, a civil rights attorney who represents the Townsend family but is not involved in the trial, said at a March 31 news conference. 

    NEW YORK: Jury selection and opening statements are set to begin Monday in a trial that mashes up Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” with Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On.”

    The heirs of Ed Townsend, Gaye’s co-writer of the 1973 soul classic, sued Sheeran, alleging the English pop star’s hit 2014 tune has “striking similarities” to “Let’s Get It On” and “overt common elements” that violate their copyright.

    The lawsuit filed in 2017 has finally made it to a trial that is expected to last a week in the Manhattan federal courtroom of 95-year-old Judge Louis L. Stanton. Sheeran, 32, is among the witnesses expected to testify.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2′); });

    “Let’s Get It On” is the quintessential, sexy slow jam that’s been heard in countless films and commercials and garnered hundreds of millions of streams, spins and radio plays over the past 50 years.

    “Thinking Out Loud,” which won a Grammy for song of the year, is a much more marital take on love and sex.

    While the jury will hear the recordings of both songs, probably many times, their lyrics — and vibes — are legally insignificant. Jurors are supposed to only consider the raw elements of melody, harmony and rhythm that make up the composition of “Let’s Get It On,” as documented on sheet music filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    Sheeran’s attorneys have said the songs’ undeniable structural symmetry points only to the foundations of popular music.

    “The two songs share versions of a similar and unprotectable chord progression that was freely available to all songwriters,” they said in a court filing.

    Townsend family attorneys pointed out in the lawsuit that artists including Boyz II Men have performed seamless mashups of the two songs, and that even Sheeran himself has segued into “Let’s Get It On” during live performances of “Thinking Out Loud.”

    They sought to play a potentially damning YouTube video of one such Sheeran performance for the jury at trial. Stanton denied their motion to include it, but said he would reconsider it after he sees other evidence that’s presented.

    Gaye’s estate is not involved in the case, though it will inevitably have echoes of their successful lawsuit against Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and T.I. over the resemblance of their 2013 hit “Blurred Lines” to Gaye’s 1977 “Got to Give it Up.”

    A jury awarded Gaye’s heirs $7.4 million at trial — later trimmed by a judge to $5.3 million — making it among the most significant copyright cases in recent decades.
    Sheeran’s label Atlantic Records and Sony/ATV Music Publishing are also named as defendants in the

    “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuit. Generally, plaintiffs in copyright lawsuits cast a wide net in naming defendants, though a judge can eliminate any names deemed inappropriate. In this case, however, Sheeran’s co-writer on the song, Amy Wadge, was never named.

    Townsend, who also wrote the 1958 R&B doo-wop hit “For Your Love,” was a singer, songwriter and lawyer. He died in 2003. Kathryn Townsend Griffin, his daughter, is the plaintiff leading the lawsuit.

    Already a Motown superstar in the 1960s before his more adult 1970s output made him a generational musical giant, Gaye was killed in 1984 at age 44, shot by his father as he tried to intervene in a fight between his parents.

    Major artists are often hit with lawsuits alleging song-stealing, but nearly all settle before trial — as Taylor Swift recently did over “Shake it Off,” ending a lawsuit that lasted years longer and came closer to trial than most other cases.

    But Sheeran — whose musical style drawing from classic soul, pop and R&B has made him a target for copyright lawsuits — has shown a willingness to go to trial before. A year ago, he won a U.K. copyright battle over his 2017 hit “Shape of You,” then slammed what he described as a “culture” of baseless lawsuits intended to squeeze money out of artists eager to avoid the expense of a trial.

    “I feel like claims like this are way too common now and have become a culture where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court, even if there is no basis for the claim,” Sheeran said in a video posted on Twitter after the verdict. “It’s really damaging to the songwriting industry.”

    The “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuit also invokes one of the most common tropes in American and British music since the earliest days of rock ‘n’ roll, R&B and hip-hop: a young white artist seemingly appropriating the work of an older Black artist — accusations that were also levied at Elvis Presley and The Beatles, whose music drew on that of Black forerunners.

    “Mr. Sheeran blatantly took a Black artist’s music who he doesn’t view as worthy as compensation,” Ben Crump, a civil rights attorney who represents the Townsend family but is not involved in the trial, said at a March 31 news conference.
     

  • SC affirms death penalty of LeT terrorist in 2000 Red Fort attack case, rejects review plea 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist Mohammad Arif alias Ashfaq seeking review of its verdict awarding death penalty to him in the sensational 2000 Red Fort attack case that left three Army jawans dead.

    The apex court said there was nothing on record which can be taken to be a mitigating circumstance in Arif’s favour and the fact that there was a “direct attack” on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India completely outweighs the factors which may even remotely be brought into consideration as the mitigating circumstances.

    Dealing with the issue raised by the petitioner that the courts concerned had erred in allowing call records to be admitted in evidence in the absence of an appropriate certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, a bench headed by Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit said the other circumstances on record do clearly spell out and prove beyond any doubt his involvement in the crime.

    The bench, also comprising justices S R Bhat and Bela M Trivedi, said it is well accepted that the cumulative effect of the aggravating factors and the mitigating circumstances must be taken into account before the death sentence is awarded.

    “Coming back to the instant case, there is nothing on record which can be taken to be a mitigating circumstance in favour of the review petitioner. The suggestion that there is a possibility of retribution and rehabilitation is not made out from and supported by any material on record,” it said.

    “On the other hand, the aggravating circumstances evident from the record and especially the fact that there was a direct attack on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, completely outweigh the factors which may even remotely be brought into consideration as mitigating circumstances on record,” the bench said in its 40-page judgement.

    According to the prosecution, on the night of December 22, 2000, some intruders had entered the area where the unit of 7 Rajputana Rifles of the Indian Army was stationed inside the Red Fort here. The police had said that in the firing that was opened by the intruders, who had thereafter left by scaling the rear side boundary wall of the Red Fort, three Army jawans had lost their lives.

    Arif was awarded death sentence by a trial court in October 2005 and the Delhi High Court had affirmed the view of the trial court in September 2007. He had then approached the apex court challenging the high court’s verdict. The top court had in August 2011 affirmed the death sentence awarded to Arif.

    Later, his review petition came up before a two-judge bench of the apex court which dismissed it in August 2012.

    The curative petition was also rejected in January 2014. Thereafter, he filed a petition submitting that review petitions in matters arising out of the award of death sentence be heard by a bench of three judges and in open court.

    ALSO READ | Nothing changes with death penalty

    A constitution bench of the apex court had in its September 2014 judgement concluded that in all cases in which a death sentence was awarded by the high court, such matters be listed before a bench of three judges.

    Before the September 2014 verdict, the review and curative petitions of death row convicts were not heard in open courts but were decided in chamber proceedings by circulation.

    In January 2016, a constitution bench had directed that Arif shall be entitled to seek a re-opening of the dismissal of the review petitions for an open court hearing within one month.

    In its verdict delivered on Thursday, the apex court noted that the challenge has been raised principally on four grounds, including that any possibility of retribution and rehabilitation of the review petitioner or that he would continue to be a threat to society, was not considered by the courts.

    It said one of the grounds raised by Arif was that his disclosure statements must be taken to be inadmissible on account of ill-treatment meted out to him during the intervening night between his actual arrest and his formal arrest.

    The bench noted that the basic submission advanced by Arif’s counsel was about the admissibility of electronic records being called data records (CDRs).

    The top court referred to some previous judgements delivered by the apex court including on the issue of admissibility of call records without there being an appropriate certificate under section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act.

    “In conclusion, it must therefore be observed that even after eschewing circumstances ‘h’ and ‘j’ which were directly attributable to the CDRs relied upon by the prosecution, the other circumstances on record do clearly spell out and prove beyond any doubt the involvement of the review petitioner in the crime in question,” it said.

    The bench said the disclosure statement was held to have been proved by the courts in the matter and in review jurisdiction, it would not be possible to enter into questions regarding admissibility of such disclosure statement on issues of fact.

    It said the disclosure statement had led the police to hide out here and when the police team arrived with Arif, there was firing on the police and after one Abu Shamal alias Faisal had died in the encounter, certain fire arms and ammunition were recovered.

    “The submission that such recovery of ammunition or the encounter of Abu Shamal could not be associated with the disclosure statement of the review petitioner is not quite correct,” the apex court said.

    “Consequently, we do not find any merit in the instant review petitions, which are accordingly dismissed,” it said.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist Mohammad Arif alias Ashfaq seeking review of its verdict awarding death penalty to him in the sensational 2000 Red Fort attack case that left three Army jawans dead.

    The apex court said there was nothing on record which can be taken to be a mitigating circumstance in Arif’s favour and the fact that there was a “direct attack” on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India completely outweighs the factors which may even remotely be brought into consideration as the mitigating circumstances.

    Dealing with the issue raised by the petitioner that the courts concerned had erred in allowing call records to be admitted in evidence in the absence of an appropriate certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, a bench headed by Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit said the other circumstances on record do clearly spell out and prove beyond any doubt his involvement in the crime.

    The bench, also comprising justices S R Bhat and Bela M Trivedi, said it is well accepted that the cumulative effect of the aggravating factors and the mitigating circumstances must be taken into account before the death sentence is awarded.

    “Coming back to the instant case, there is nothing on record which can be taken to be a mitigating circumstance in favour of the review petitioner. The suggestion that there is a possibility of retribution and rehabilitation is not made out from and supported by any material on record,” it said.

    “On the other hand, the aggravating circumstances evident from the record and especially the fact that there was a direct attack on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, completely outweigh the factors which may even remotely be brought into consideration as mitigating circumstances on record,” the bench said in its 40-page judgement.

    According to the prosecution, on the night of December 22, 2000, some intruders had entered the area where the unit of 7 Rajputana Rifles of the Indian Army was stationed inside the Red Fort here. The police had said that in the firing that was opened by the intruders, who had thereafter left by scaling the rear side boundary wall of the Red Fort, three Army jawans had lost their lives.

    Arif was awarded death sentence by a trial court in October 2005 and the Delhi High Court had affirmed the view of the trial court in September 2007. He had then approached the apex court challenging the high court’s verdict. The top court had in August 2011 affirmed the death sentence awarded to Arif.

    Later, his review petition came up before a two-judge bench of the apex court which dismissed it in August 2012.

    The curative petition was also rejected in January 2014. Thereafter, he filed a petition submitting that review petitions in matters arising out of the award of death sentence be heard by a bench of three judges and in open court.

    ALSO READ | Nothing changes with death penalty

    A constitution bench of the apex court had in its September 2014 judgement concluded that in all cases in which a death sentence was awarded by the high court, such matters be listed before a bench of three judges.

    Before the September 2014 verdict, the review and curative petitions of death row convicts were not heard in open courts but were decided in chamber proceedings by circulation.

    In January 2016, a constitution bench had directed that Arif shall be entitled to seek a re-opening of the dismissal of the review petitions for an open court hearing within one month.

    In its verdict delivered on Thursday, the apex court noted that the challenge has been raised principally on four grounds, including that any possibility of retribution and rehabilitation of the review petitioner or that he would continue to be a threat to society, was not considered by the courts.

    It said one of the grounds raised by Arif was that his disclosure statements must be taken to be inadmissible on account of ill-treatment meted out to him during the intervening night between his actual arrest and his formal arrest.

    The bench noted that the basic submission advanced by Arif’s counsel was about the admissibility of electronic records being called data records (CDRs).

    The top court referred to some previous judgements delivered by the apex court including on the issue of admissibility of call records without there being an appropriate certificate under section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act.

    “In conclusion, it must therefore be observed that even after eschewing circumstances ‘h’ and ‘j’ which were directly attributable to the CDRs relied upon by the prosecution, the other circumstances on record do clearly spell out and prove beyond any doubt the involvement of the review petitioner in the crime in question,” it said.

    The bench said the disclosure statement was held to have been proved by the courts in the matter and in review jurisdiction, it would not be possible to enter into questions regarding admissibility of such disclosure statement on issues of fact.

    It said the disclosure statement had led the police to hide out here and when the police team arrived with Arif, there was firing on the police and after one Abu Shamal alias Faisal had died in the encounter, certain fire arms and ammunition were recovered.

    “The submission that such recovery of ammunition or the encounter of Abu Shamal could not be associated with the disclosure statement of the review petitioner is not quite correct,” the apex court said.

    “Consequently, we do not find any merit in the instant review petitions, which are accordingly dismissed,” it said.

  • Two labourers from UP killed in grenade attack in J-K, LeT ‘hybrid terrorist’ arrested

    By PTI

    SRINAGAR: Two migrant labourers were killed after terrorists hurled a grenade at them in Shopian district of Jammu and Kashmir in the early hours of Tuesday, police said.

    A local “hybrid terrorist” of the proscribed outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) was arrested for the attack during a search and cordon operation, they said.

    “Hybrid terrorists” are unlisted radicalised people who carry out terror strikes and slip back into their routine lives often without leaving any trace.

    2 migrant labourers from UP killed in a grenade attack by militants in Harmen area of Shopian in south Kashmir. The deceased labourers identified as Monish Kumar & Ram Sagar, both residents of Kanooj, UP.@NewIndianXpress @santwana99 @TheMornStandard
    — Fayaz Wani (@iamfayazwani) October 18, 2022
    Below are links to other such attacks in Jammu and Kashmir:

    1. Four militants killed in separate encounters in J-K’s Shopian 

    2. Cop killed, CRPF personnel injured in militant attack in J&K’s Pulwama

    3. Encounter breaks out between militants and security forces in J&K’s Kulgam

    4. Two militants involved in attack on labourer killed

    5. Kashmiri Pandit shot dead, brother injured in militant attack in J&K’s Shopian

    SRINAGAR: Two migrant labourers were killed after terrorists hurled a grenade at them in Shopian district of Jammu and Kashmir in the early hours of Tuesday, police said.

    A local “hybrid terrorist” of the proscribed outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) was arrested for the attack during a search and cordon operation, they said.

    “Hybrid terrorists” are unlisted radicalised people who carry out terror strikes and slip back into their routine lives often without leaving any trace.

    2 migrant labourers from UP killed in a grenade attack by militants in Harmen area of Shopian in south Kashmir. The deceased labourers identified as Monish Kumar & Ram Sagar, both residents of Kanooj, UP.@NewIndianXpress @santwana99 @TheMornStandard
    — Fayaz Wani (@iamfayazwani) October 18, 2022
    Below are links to other such attacks in Jammu and Kashmir:

    1. Four militants killed in separate encounters in J-K’s Shopian 

    2. Cop killed, CRPF personnel injured in militant attack in J&K’s Pulwama

    3. Encounter breaks out between militants and security forces in J&K’s Kulgam

    4. Two militants involved in attack on labourer killed

    5. Kashmiri Pandit shot dead, brother injured in militant attack in J&K’s Shopian

  • Two LeT terrorists overpowered by villagers; handed over to police in J&K

    By PTI

    JAMMU: Two heavily-armed Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists, including the mastermind of an IED blasts in Rajouri recently, were overpowered by villagers and handed over to the police in Reasi district of Jammu and Kashmir on Sunday, a senior police officer said.

    Lt Governor Manoj Sinha and Director General of Police Dilbag Singh lauded the villagers for their courage and announced cash rewards for them.

    The terrorists including the most wanted LeT commander Talib Hussain, a resident of Rajouri district and the mastermind of the recent IED blasts in the district, were nabbed at Tuksan Dhok village, the officials said.

    “Today, villagers of Tukson Dhok showed extreme courage in apprehending two most wanted terrorists of LeT who had reached the area to take shelter after continuous pressure from the police and army (in Rajouri district),” Additional Director General of Police, Jammu zone, Mukesh Singh said in a statement here.

    He identified the other captured terrorist as Faisal Ahmad Dar of south Kashmir’s Pulwama, and said two AK assault rifles, seven grenades, a pistol and a huge quantity of ammunition were recovered from the two arrested terrorists.

    Singh said the Lt Governor has applauded the courage of villagers and announced a cash reward of Rs 5 lakh for their bravery, while the Director General of Police announced a cash reward of Rs 2 lakh for them.

    “I salute the bravery of villagers of Tukson Dhok, Reasi, who apprehended two-most wanted terrorists. Such determination by common man shows end of terrorism is not far away. UT Govt to extend Rs five lakh cash reward to villagers for gallant act against terrorists and terrorism,” the office of LG tweeted.

    The arrest of the duo followed unearthing of a module headed by Hussain in Rajouri district on June 28, which was behind the recent series of explosions in the district.

    While two terror operatives of the outfit were arrested along with five Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), Hussain was on the run and had moved to nearby Reasi district to escape the dragnet of security forces. “Hussain was in constant touch with LeT terrorist Qasim based in Pakistan and was involved in at least three cases of IED blasts at Rajouri district besides civilian killings and grenade blasts,” Singh said.

    During preliminary questioning, he said it was revealed that both the terrorists were also in touch with a Pakistani LeT handler Salman. Terming the arrest of the two terrorists a “major breakthrough,” the officer said they were attempting to revive terrorism in the border districts of Rajouri and Poonch besides Reasi.

    Twin explosions rocked Kotrana town of Rajouri on March 26 and another on April 19, leaving two persons injured. Two more persons were injured in another blast that took place in Shahpur-Budhal area of Rajouri on April 24.

  • Two LeT terrorists overpowered by villagers; handed over to police in Jammu and Kashmir’s Reasi

    By PTI

    JAMMU: Two heavily armed Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists, including one of its most-wanted commanders, were overpowered by villagers and handed over to the police in Jammu and Kashmir’s Reasi district on Sunday, officials said.

    LeT commander Talib Hussain, a resident of Rajouri district and the mastermind behind the recent IED blasts in the district, and Faizal Ahmad Dar, a categorised terrorist of south Kashmir’s Pulwama district, were captured in Tuksan village, they said.

    Two AK assault rifles, seven grenades and a pistol were recovered from them, the officials added. Director General of Police Dilbag Singh announced a cash reward of Rs 2 lakh for the villagers for their bravery.

  • Two terrorists killed in Kupwara encounter; another gunfight underway in Kulgam

    By PTI

    SRINAGAR: Two terrorists were killed in an encounter on June 19 with security forces in Jammu and Kashmir’s Kupwara district, while another gunfight was underway in Kulgam district, police said.

    They said while one of the terrorists killed in the Kupwara encounter was a Pakistani affiliated with the proscribed Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the identity of the second was being ascertained.

    Police said the encounter in Kupwara started after the forces launched an operation in Lolab area of north Kashmir on the instance of an arrested terrorist, Showket Ahmed Sheikh.

    During the search of the hideouts, the hiding terrorists fired upon the force personnel who retaliated, in which one terrorist was killed, the Kashmir Zone Police said on Twitter. “The arrested terrorist also got trapped,” the police said.

    Inspector-General of Police Vijay Kumar said the killed terrorist has been identified as a Pakistani, linked with the LeT terror outfit. The IGP Kashmir tweeted, “2-3 more #terrorists along with arrested terrorist trapped in ongoing #encounter.”

    Encounter in Kulgam underway

    Another encounter is underway in Damhal Hanji Pora area of Kulgam in south Kashmir, the police said. They said the exchange of fire was going on but there were no reports of any casualty on either side so far.

    #Encounter has started at D.H Pora area of #Kulgam. Police and Army on job. Further details shall follow.@JmuKmrPolice
    — Kashmir Zone Police (@KashmirPolice) June 19, 2022

  • Pakistani LeT terrorist killed in Kupwara encounter; another gunfight underway in Kulgam

    By PTI

    SRINAGAR: A Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist from Pakistan was killed in an encounter Sunday with security forces in Jammu and Kashmir’s Kupwara district, while another gunfight was underway in Kulgam district, police said.

    They said the encounter in Kupwara started after the forces launched an operation in Lolab area of the north Kashmir on the instance of an arrested terrorist, Showket Ahmed Sheikh, During the search of the hideouts, the hiding terrorists fired upon the force personnel who retaliated, in which one terrorist was killed, the Kashmir Zone Police said on Twitter.

    “The arrested terrorist also got trapped,” the police said, adding the encounter was still underway.

    Inspector-General of Police Vijay Kumar said the killed terrorist has been identified as a Pakistani, linked with the proscribed LeT terror outfit. The IGP Kashmir tweeted, “2-3 more #terrorists along with arrested terrorist trapped in ongoing #encounter.”

    Another encounter is underway in Damhal Hanji Pora area of Kulgam in south Kashmir, the police said. They said the exchange of fire was going on but there were no reports of any casualty on either side so far.

    #Encounter has started at D.H Pora area of #Kulgam. Police and Army on job. Further details shall follow.@JmuKmrPolice
    — Kashmir Zone Police (@KashmirPolice) June 19, 2022

  • Pakistani militant killed in encounter in J&K’s Baramulla

    By PTI

    SRINAGAR: A Pakistani militant of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) was killed in an encounter with security forces in Baramulla district of Jammu and Kashmir on Monday, while three terrorists managed to escape, police said.

    Acting on specific inputs about the presence of militants in Panipora forest of the Zaloora area in Sopore, security forces launched a cordon-and-search operation there, a police official said. He said the search operation turned into an encounter after the hiding militants fired at the security personnel, who retaliated.

    Inspector General of Police (IGP), Kashmir zone, Vijay Kumar said one Pakistani terrorist was killed in the encounter.

    In a Twitter post, Kumar said incriminating material, including arms and ammunition, was recovered from the terrorist, and two foreign and one local terrorist managed to escape from the cordon. Search is still on to nab the escapees, he said.

    Kumar said as per the documents recovered from the killed terrorist, he has been identified as Hanzalla of Lahore, Pakistan. An AK rifle, five magazines along with ammunition, has been recovered, the IGP said.

  • Pakistani terrorist among two ultras killed in encounter in J&K’s Kulgam

    By PTI

    SRINAGAR: A Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist from Pakistan was among two ultras killed in an encounter with security forces in Kulgam district of Jammu and Kashmir on Sunday, police said.

    Acting on a specific information regarding the presence of terrorists in the Cheyan Devsar area of Kulgam in south Kashmir, security forces launched a cordon-and-search operation there, a police spokesman said.

    As the security forces personnel approached the suspected spot, the hiding terrorists fired indiscriminately upon them. The security personnel effectively retaliated leading to a gunfight, he said.

    “In the ensuing encounter, two terrorists of the proscribed terror outfit LeT, including Pakistani terrorist commander Haider, was killed and their bodies were retrieved from the site. The other killed terrorist has been identified as Shahbaz Shah of Kulgam,” the spokesman said.

    Inspector General of Police (IGP) of Kashmir Vijay Kumar called the operation a big success and congratulated the joint team for eliminating the wanted Pakistani terrorist, Haider.

    Incriminating materials and arms and ammunition, including an AK-56 rifle with four magazines, a pistol with a magazine and one UBGL, were recovered from the site of the encounter, the spokesman said.

    According to police records, Haider was a categorised terrorist who was active for more than two years in north Kashmir and had recently shifted his base to south Kashmir, he said.

    “The killed terrorist was part of groups involved in several terror crimes, civilian atrocities and various killings, including recent killings of police personnel Mohammad Sultan and Fayaz Ahmad in November last year at Gulshan Chowk Bandipora.

    “He was also involved in an attack on a naka party near Nishat Park Bandipora in February this year in which SPO Zubair Ahmad attained martyrdom while four other security personnel were injured,” he said.

    Shah was a “hybrid terrorist” and was involved in the killing of Satish Kumar Singh, a civilian belonging to minority community, on April 13 in Kakran of Kulgam. “After this attack, the said terrorist was categorised,” the spokesman said.