Will the Supreme Court confirm the death sentence on Mukesh (24), Pawan (20), Vinay (22) and Akshay (29) awarded by the trial court and Delhi High Court?.
The verdict will be out tomorrow.
According to the Supreme Court’s causelist, a bench of justices Dipak Misra, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan will pronounce the judgment at 2.00 PM. The bench, after extensive hearing had reserved its verdict on March 27
Just before the Supreme Court reserved its verdict recently, the prosecution in the sensational Nirbhaya rape and murder case has submitted before the special bench of the Supreme Court that four death row convicts do not deserve any leniency and only confirmation of capital punishment would meet the ends of justice given the “diabolical nature, brazenness and brutality” of the crime
In 2012, five adult men and a juvenile lured the 23-year-old trainee physiotherapist and her male friend onto a bus in Delhi, where they repeatedly raped the woman and beat both with a metal bar before dumping them on a road. The woman, later dubbedNirbhaya (meaning fearless), died two weeks later of her injuries. Four of the adults were sentenced to death while the fifth hanged himself in prison.
On August 31, 2013, the juvenile was convicted and sentenced to three years in a reformation home. He was released in December 2015.
GIST OF AMICUS RAJU RAMACHANDRAN’S ARGUMENT
Ramachandran had submitted before the Court that the order on sentence passed by the Trial Court on 11.9.2013 and confirmed by the High Court, ought to be set aside for violating the fundamental norms of sentencing, constitutionally ingrained, statutorily reflected and judicially interpreted by the Apex Court. He submitted that firstly, the statutory procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not strictly adhered to. Secondly, the tests prescribed by the Supreme Court to be followed while awarding death sentence have been overlooked and/or misapplied both by the Trial Court and the High Court.
GIST OF AMICUS SANJAY HEGDE’S ARGUMENT
Hegde submitted before the Court that there is no evidence to prove conspiracy in the Nirbhaya rape and murder case. He submitted that in the absence of proof of conspiracy by the appellants to cause the death of the prosecutrix, coupled with the failure of the prosecution to provide clear evidence with respect to the overt acts of each of the appellants in causing death of the prosecutrix, the death sentences ought to be revisited.“In the present case, insofar as the lack of planning or premeditation regarding the crime is concerned, it can be said that the accused did not plan the offence in detail or carry out the plan in a calculated manner which signifies the absence of social predisposition or hardened criminality. While there is no doubt that the manner of the commission of the crime was brutal, it is premeditation and planning which determines the disposition of the accused, and the lack of pre-mediation or reflection on the actions of the accused should be considered in determining the possibility of reform of the accused.”