Italy will send Marines Back to India for Trial

[Daredevil]

Italy-India row: Rome to send marines back for trial

21 March 2013 Last updated at 20:12 GMT Massimiliano Latorre (R) and Salvatore Girone had returned to Italy before Christmas
Two Italian marines accused of murdering two Indian fishermen, in a case that has sparked a diplomatic row, are to be sent back to Delhi for trial.

The Indian government had allowed them to return to Italy to vote in last month's election.

But when they failed to return, India's Supreme Court ruled Italy's ambassador was barred from leaving the country.

The Italian government said it had received assurances about the men's treatment and their human rights.

The marines, Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, are accused of shooting the fishermen off the Kerala coast in February 2012. The marines had been guarding an Italian oil tanker and said they mistook the fishermen for pirates.

The marines, who had been out on bail awaiting trial, were allowed to fly back to Italy for the February 2013 general election on condition that they returned to stand trial by 22 March.

Italian ambassador Daniele Mancini gave his personal assurance that they would return within four weeks.

But then Rome decided that they would not fly back to Delhi, arguing that India was violating international law by putting them on trial, as the shooting had taken place in international waters.

Rome proposed putting them on trial in Italy.

The day before the men's licence was due to expire, the office of Prime Minister Mario Monti issued a statement saying that the marines had agreed to return, during a meeting with Mr Monti and other ministers.

'Responsibility'

The BBC's Bethany Bell in Rome said the decision was a turnaround by the Italian government.

It had received "ample assurances" from Delhi, the statement from Mr Monti's office said.

"The marines agreed to this decision," the statement said, adding that it was also in the men's interest.

President Giorgio Napolitano said he appreciated their "sense of responsibility" and said Italy would remain by their side.

The Italian foreign ministry's decision 10 days ago not to return the two men had prompted a bitter diplomatic row, with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh warning of "consequences" if it was not reversed.

Then the Delhi Supreme Court ordered Rome's envoy not to leave the country and airports across India were put on alert to stop him flying out.

Italy said restricting its ambassador's movements violated diplomatic conventions.

BBC News - Italy-India row: Rome to send marines back for trial

 

[thakur_ritesh]

It is nice to see this episode end the way it has. Italians did make a sensible choice in the end, and well done to the courts, the foreign ministry and the GoI.

Anything to get euphoric about, I think no. These should be basic minimum things we should expect off the government of the day of a country which expects to play quite crucial role in global affairs in times to come.

And don't forget there are still Headley's and the Rana's sitting in some corner of the world.

But still starting from Bangladesh to the KSA to Italy, Indian diplomacy has done a good job.

 

[Ray]

NO thanks to this lame duck spineless Govt.

All thanks to the Supreme Court!

 

[arya]

the thing is under supreme court should not talk more on media in any form

 

[WMD]

NO thanks to this lame duck spineless Govt.

All thanks to the Supreme Court!

Lame duck UPA govt.

A lame duck is an elected official who is approaching the end of his or her tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected.

Lame duck (politics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ray]

the thing is under supreme court should not talk more on media in any form

You must understand that one cannot comment on a judgement of the court.

But that does not hinder anyone from discussing issues connected with it.

If it were not so, every TV channel or newspaper would have faced contempt of court!

All the scams are under deliberation in the courts. So, we sit back, zip our mind and mouth and let the Govt loot the nation?

We get kicked around by all and everyone and since it is in the domain of court proceedings, we sit back and get shafted even more?

Have you thought about the agony of those poor, illiterate fisherfolks whose men have been killed?

They and their kith and kin should sit back and say jolly good,and we will not talk because it is a matter of the court?

Even the clamour for the Delhi rape victim would be contempt of court because an FIR had been lodged!

The world has changed. People want justice. Speedy justice. Or else they will clamour for it and archaic and colonial laws will be proved an ass!

 

[sayareakd]

Well we have as per reports said will not ask for death sentance. If convicted they can get 7 years to life. Hope they get life sentance for killing innocent unarmed fishermen.

 

[tramp]

Well we have as per reports said will not ask for death sentance. If convicted they can get 7 years to life. Hope they get life sentance for killing innocent unarmed fishermen.

.
In any case the charge would be homicide and not murder. So death sentence was out of the question.
So far so good.
The issue to be seen is if the accused would be allowed to stay in the embassy until the sentence is pronounced, after which they would be flown to Italy under that hastily signed agreement between New Delhi and Rome that allows convicts to spend their sentence in respective nations. That is more likely to be the scenario

 

[sayareakd]

.
In any case the charge would be homicide and not murder. So death sentence was out of the question.
So far so good.
The issue to be seen is if the accused would be allowed to stay in the embassy until the sentence is pronounced, after which they would be flown to Italy under that hastily signed agreement between New Delhi and Rome that allows convicts to spend their sentence in respective nations. That is more likely to be the scenario

Well i hate Criminal law.

here is the law on this subject.
first we have to see if it comes under S299 of IPC

Section 299. Culpable homicide


Who ever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

then if it satisfy S299 then we have to see if it comes under S 300 or not.

Section 300. Murder


Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

Secondly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—

Thirdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be in-flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Illustrations

(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.

(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been suffi-cient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.

(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death.

(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.

Exception 1.—When culpable homicide is not murder.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following provisos:—

First.—That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily pro-voked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

Secondly.—That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exer-cise of the powers of such public servant.

Thirdly.—That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.

Explanation

Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

Illustrations

(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills. Y, Z's child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.

(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provo-cation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing him-self to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.

(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.

(d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of A's deposition, and that A has per-jured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.

(e) A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homi-cide, but A is guilty of murder.

Exception 2.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.

Illustration

Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide.

Exception 3.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.

Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanation

It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

Exception 5.—Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

Illustration

A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.

Marines can take the defence in Exception 3.

If court takes the Defence then punishment is under S 304

Section 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder


Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,

or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

 

[sayareakd]

after discussing and pointing out by @A chauhan

Section 21 - Indian Penal Code (IPC)

S300 exception 3 is not applicable to the marines.

therefore now the case has come to 302

Section 302. Punishment for murder


Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine

 

[A chauhan]

Only prosecution witnesses can tell the reality, lets see what they say. Marines can't prove section 100 (self defence), nor good faith (sec 52), post-mortem report may help the judge to determine what was the true intention of those marines, which part of the body they shot and did they actually wished to kill them etc. However they are going be convicted for sure either u/s 304(299) or 302(300).

 

[tramp]

The best part whatever the final sentence, is that no gun slinging scum aboard ships of sinking economies that pass Indian coast will from now on dare do target practice on those dark-skinned critters seen bobbing around alongside the ship.

 

[GPM]

Grape vine whisper.

Govt threatened to send back Maino and Vinci. Italians lost appetite to fight.

 

[tramp]

Grape vine whisper.

Govt threatened to send back Maino and Vinci. Italians lost appetite to fight.

They must have thought not worth the risk of having a permanent scowl in their midst.

 

[nrj]

Most of the Italians I know are embarrassed about stupidity of Italian government.

 

[nrj]

Return of naval guards upholds dignity of judicial process, PM says

"The Italian naval guards are coming back in accordance with the direction of Supreme Court and it is consistent with the dignity of judicial process in India," he said.

 

[sayareakd]

Most of the Italians I know are embarrassed about stupidity of Italian government.

they have done lot of things which are you talking about ?

 

[nrj]

they have done lot of things which are you talking about ?

Unstable Italian government's stupidity in handling marine issue with India.

 

[Defenceindia2010]

Italy on Friday said it would send two marines on trial for murder in India back to the country, after earlier saying they would remain in Italy in a move that had unleashed a diplomatic furore.

The two had been granted a special leave by an Indian court to return to Italy to vote in elections and will now go back to India before that leave expires on March 22, the government said in a statement.

Italy has decided to sent back marines

NDTV

''Result'' :thumb: crack the whip, this is what foreign policy should be like.

 

[GPM]

Remember. Italy is our nation-in-law. Hence those marines are being given VIP treatment even now.