New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday will hear the appeal of the convicts in the horrific December 16 gang-rape case.
The convicts – Akshay, Pawan, Vijay and Mukesh have challenged the Delhi High Court order which had sentenced the four of them to the gallows after keeping in view the fact that it was a rarest of the rare case.
The matter is being heard by the apex court headed by Justice Dipak Mishra and was at a fag end in which the arguments were on.
Earlier, the court had declined the request by two amici curiae – senior counsel Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay R Hegde – to withdraw from assisting the court in the hearing of the appeals by the convicts in the gangrape case.
On December 16, 2012, six people gang-raped a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern in a moving bus and beat her and her male friend.
After violently raping her, they threw the duo outside the bus.
The girl succumbed to her injuries in a Singapore hospital on December 29, 2012.
The incident led to large-scale protests across the country, forcing the government of the day to make strict and punitive laws related to harassment of women.
One of the accused, Ram Singh hanged himself in prison, while another man, who was a juvenile at the time of the crime, was convicted in August and will serve the maximum sentence of three years in a reform home.
Meanwhile, on December 3, Amicus Curiae Sanjay Hegde questioned the evidence produced by the prosecution in the Nirbhaya gang rape case.
In a special hearing, Hegde came out with certain points putting a question on the merit of evidence.
Hegde said that one of the convicts, Mukesh, was not with the prime culprit Ram Singh when the offence was committed. He further added that mobile locations of Mukesh and Ram Singh were found to be different on the night the offence took place.
However, Luthra said they have evidence of a dying declaration, forensic evidence with regard to DNA blood samples and fingerprints. He said that the evidence establishes the fact of the alleged persons’ involvement.
Luthra further said there was no element of tutoring in the case, as was the point made by one of the defence lawyers.
Bureau Report
Leave a Reply