The Economic Times daily newspaper is available online now.

    Nirbhaya case: Supreme Court upholds death penalty for three rapists

    Synopsis

    The fourth death row convict, Akshay Kumar Singh (31), did not file a review petition against the apex court's May 5, 2017 judgement.

    Death for Nirbhaya’s rapists upheld, review plea by convicts dismissed
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the death penalty for three convicts in the Nirbhaya rape-murder case, rejecting their claims of forced confession and alibis of not being present at the crime scene. A fourth person, who also faces the death penalty, didn’t seek a review of the sentence.

    A bench comprising CJI Dipak Misra and justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan rejected the pleas of Mukesh Kumar, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta. The fourth convict is Akshay Singh. They can now file a curative petition in court and seek presidential pardon or clemency to cancel the death penalty.

    Mukesh Singh said he only had a licence to drive light motor vehicles and not a bus, and hence could not have been said to be in the bus in which the 23-year-old woman was raped in December 2012. He also claimed to have been tortured by police into confessing the crime, a charge the court said was never previously alleged or proved.

    Both Sharma and Gupta, in their early twenties, pleaded afresh that they were juveniles. The claims had been rejected by the trial court and the high court. They claimed that their birth certificates were false and had falsely declared their ages to be higher. They also said the DNA tests to ascertain their age were inaccurate.

    Nirbhaya’s parents welcomed the court decision which they had been seeking for long. In September 2013, a fast-track trial court sentenced the four accused to death, which the Delhi high court upheld in March 2014. Their appeals against the conviction was rejected by SC on May 5, 2017.

    One of the key accused, Ram Singh, allegedly killed himself in jail. Another who was a juvenile at them time has spent time in a reformation home and has been released.

    “Review is not rehearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court.

    A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.” The court said a review was only possible when there was discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him.

    Another case is when there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. But it cannot review a case when arguments which were earlier overruled were reopened or there were minor mistakes of inconsequential import or unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.


    (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)
    (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2024 News, Budget 2024 Live Coverage, Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)

    Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.

    Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.

    ...more

    (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)
    (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2024 News, Budget 2024 Live Coverage, Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)

    Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.

    Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.

    ...more
    The Economic Times

    Stories you might be interested in