Top Stories

Nirbhaya: Defence lawyer's new weird theories and SC's admonition

LiveLaw News Network
9 Aug 2016 4:24 AM GMT
Nirbhaya: Defence lawyer
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

"Just because we are permitting you sufficient time does not mean that you can say whatever you want and at time become indifferent. No No No this just cannot be permitted": SC Special Bench to M L Sharma.

As the hearing of the appeal filed by four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya case progresses in the Supreme Court, the special bench has slammed M L Sharma, the lawyer for Mukesh and Pawan for raising wild allegations and new claims rather than sticking to the facts already on the record of the case.

"The new allegations you are raising cannot be stretched to such an extent that it itself questions the validity of the judgment of the trial court and the High Court. Your challenge has to be based on the evidence already on the record. Whatever evidence is on record you argue only on the basis of that. Just because we are permitting you sufficient time does not mean that you can say whatever you want and at time become indifferent. No No No this just cannot be permitted", a bench of justices Dipak Misra, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan told Sharma.


The remark from the bench came when Sharma alleged that  the entire incident was orchestrated on the night of December 16, 2012 by a politician in connivance with the male companion of the victim to score political mileage.

Sharma alleged after paying Rs 10,000 to his brother Ram Singh (one of the accused who committed suicide in Tihar jail during the trial) the politician and  male companion of the victim assured him of protection from all problems  but they ditched him. Being frustrated, Ram Singh decided to reveal everything to the trial court and the media. After this information reached these persons they got him killed. But it was called a suicide. His brother Mukesh too was under fear for being killed like Ram Singh. Mukesh was regularly being tortured and it resulted in him speaking the police version in the court.

He added: Mukesh now knows that he is sure to be hanged. So he now wants to disclose all facts. Till now he did not dare to do so due to fear of being killed like his brother Ram Singh.

Rejecting all allegations, Special Public Prosecutor Siddharth Luthra told the court that "at no stage has any accused alleged any torture. Evidence in this case material, forensic, witnesses is all water tight. He (defence lawyer) is trying to side track real issues and evidence on record and divert attention".


In a fresh petition seeking FIR and investigation into the "political conspiracy" behind the incident, Sharma says "Surprised that parents of  Nirbhaya also never demand C.B.I. investigation because they were already provided a flat of valued Rs. 2.5 crores and more than one crores cash . Still they are getting money. Perhaps they have already compromised having hand with the respondents and others so they  never cried / demand for C.B.I. inquiry for true facts and to punish real accused persons".


All these statements from Sharma comes a week after he triggered an outrage by offering to pay Rs 10 lakh reward to anyone who can prove that the victim was violated with an iron rod

Sharma had sought to give an altogether new twist by disputing the police theory of insertion of iron rod into the body of the victim by the accused and pulling out of internal organs.

Use of iron rod in the crime was central to the brutality which resulted in the death sentence for all accused.

Sharma contended: Something which is not possible medically was said by police that an iron rod was repeatedly inserted and intestines pulled out. The post mortem report prepared by the Singapore hospital says the uterus and ovaries were intact. Going by the human anatomy, if a rod is inserted through the vagina, it cannot reach the intestines without breaking the uterus.

Outside the court, the lawyer went on to declare a Rs 10 lakh award to anybody who can prove that intestines can be pulled out with a rod without damaging the uterus and ovaries.

"I have already declared that I will pay Rs 10 lakh award to a doctor or anybody who can prove as per medical science that without destroying uterus the intestine can be pulled out using an iron rod. I am sure they cannot. The police is lying. The rod theory was added later to sensationalize the whole case and also to provoke public anger", he had said.

He also pointed out that neither the victim in her dying declaration, nor her male companion made a mention of the use of iron rod for the assault.

"When the girl was admitted in the hospital on December 16, 2012 at 11.15 PM, the doctor found her in a fit state of mind and recorded her statement. While narrating the entire happening she did not utter a single word about unnatural rape using a rod. If patient herself did not mention about such a cruel and painful act, from where did the police get this?. The iron rod is missing in the testimony of her boy friend also" Sharma told the court.

As per procedure, the apex court must also confirm capital punishment, and only then can the four convicts be hanged.

The minor convict has already walked free after serving three years at a juvenile home, while another accused - Mukesh's brother Ram Singh - committed suicide inside Tihar Jail on March 11, 2013 during the trial.

Earlier Sharma had told the court that the accused had not got a fair trial thanks to the "lower court and Delhi High Court rushing through under various pressures".

The Supreme Court had replied: "We will hear it like a trial court and you can place on record whatever evidence you have. We will give you a patient hearing. Let time be consumed."

Significantly, to ensure that the convicts get a fair hearing, the court has also appointed two senior lawyers-Hi guys, In the above-mentioned article, you have mentioned that Sr. Advs. Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay Hegde have been appointed as amicus to argue in favour of 2 accused for each amicus. While that may have been originally true, a subsequent order of the Supreme Court in this case clarified that they are not appearing on behalf of any specific accused. Kindly go through the daily orders of the Supreme Court in this case to find the Order. Regards, Yash Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay Hegde .

The incident, which sparked worldwide condemnation and spurred major changes in Indian laws took place on a private bus which the victim had boarded along with a male friend on the night of December 16, 2012. They were on their way back home after watching the evening show of Life of Pi at a theatre in Saket mall. The accused brutally gang-raped the physiotherapy student, beat up her friend and dumped them from the moving bus. The victim died 13 days later at a hospital in Singapore.

Next Story