High Court upholds death sentence in Mahmood's murder
The high court passed the order with the assent of two of the three judges who heard the case.
By
Fathmath Ahmed Shareef
The High Court on Thursday upheld the death sentence handed down by the Criminal Court against Bangladeshi Shah Alam Mia (Salim) for the murder of businessman Mahmood Abubakr in Dhangethi in south Ari atoll.
In October 2021, Mahmood was found missing after being fatally injured and killed and dumped in a water well in an uninhabited house Dhangethi.
Salim confessed to killing Mahmood at the investigation and in the Criminal Court. As a punishment for the crime:
-
Salim was convicted of intentional homicide and sentenced to death by the Criminal Court
-
The Prosecutor General's Office (PG) filed the case in the High Court because all stages of the trial need to be completed and a final verdict of the Supreme Court is required in death sentences
The High Court on Thursday decided to uphold the death sentence of Salim as the lower court had completed all the procedures and proved the death sentence by his confession. It was ruled that the verdict was valid.
The high court passed the order with the assent of two of the three judges who heard the case.
Justice Hassan Shafeeu, who dissented, said:
-
The lower court did not fully guarantee Salim the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the accused
-
The confession obtained from him cannot be presumed to be valid in the event that the person’s constitutional rights are not asserted before obtaining a confession
-
Therefore, with the lower court's judgment quashed, Salim should be given an opportunity to answer after ensuring his legal rights and the Criminal Court should be asked to hear the case again
However, Justice Niyaz said in his opinion that the audio/video recording of the case in the lower court clearly showed that he had been informed of his pre-trial rights, through an interpreter.
The court had not explained to Salim the charges of attempted murder and participation in intentional homicide. However, Salim was clearly told of the original charge of intentional homicide and the punishment for it.
"Therefore, I do not think that the failure to tell the other offenses related to the original offense will affect the case procedurally and thereby cause injustice to Salim because he is convicted of the offense he was informed of at the preliminary stage," Justice Niyaz said.
This opinion was supported by Justice Fathmath Farheeza.
The High Court ruling said:
-
The absence of a thumb impression in a document to confirm that a right is guaranteed, does not mean the right was denied. Other means of verifying it cannot be left unattended, so matter cannot be dismissed without evaluating it all
-
Neither Salim nor his lawyer had mentioned such injustice in the lower court
-
Salim told the court in detail how he killed Mahmood. It clearly showed that he had the intention to kill Mahmood
-
Salim's account of what he did to cover up Mahmood's body also shows that he confesses to the murder by clarifying his evil intent and the murderous act
-
Even though Salim told the High Court that he had confessed to the crime because the police forced him to confess and said that he would be sent back home to his country if he confessed, Salim had not made any such mention throughout the Criminal Court trial
-
Therefore, there is a possibility that he is saying hat, following external guidance
-
After repeatedly pleading guilty at several hearings in the lower court, the court does not think Salim can reverse his confession saying it was forced
Summary of the case
Salim was hired to look after an elderly man in Dhangethi. He killed Mahmood inside the house where the elderly man also lived, and dragged and dumped the body in the well of an uninhabited house. After the investigation, police revealed that Mahmood was killed for money.
Police searched Salim's house under a court order and recovered some of Mahmood's belongings from the house.
Even if a lower court imposes a death sentence, the higher courts must also decide on the sentence. Therefore, the High Court upheld the lower court's judgment, and the case will be referred to the Supreme Court. Although the higher courts have reached a final verdict and sentenced to death, the death penalty is not carried out in Maldives.
