Nirbhaya convicts taking judicial process for 'joyride': Centre tells Delhi High Court
New Delhi/UNI: The Counsel for the Central government on Sunday told the Delhi High Court that the convicts in the December 16 gangrape and murder case were taking the judicial process for a 'joyride' and acting in tandem to delay the execution.
The Centre had filed a plea in the High Court against the order of the trial court, which has stayed the execution of death warrants in the case.
On December 16, 2012, a 23-year-old Paramedical student was brutally assaulted and raped by six persons in a moving bus in Delhi. The girl was flown to Singapore in a serious condition, where she had succumbed on December 29.
Additional Session Judge Satish Kumar Arora had on December 17, 2019, issued fresh death warrants against convicts Vinay Sharma (26), Mukesh Kumar Singh (32), Akshay Kumar Singh (31) and Pawan (25) for February 1.
However on January 31, Additional Session Judge Dharmender Rana had deferred the execution of their death sentence, till further orders of the court.
President Ram Nath Kovind had dismissed the mercy petition of Vinay and Mukesh, while the mercy petition of Akshay is pending.
The Supreme Court had dismissed the curative petitions filed by Akshay, Vinay and Mukesh.
Delhi High Court Justice Suresh Kait has earlier issued notice to all the convicted, DG (Prisons) and Tihar Jail authorities for hearing the matter.
Counsel for the convicts, parents of Nirbhaya, Tihar Jail Authorities and officials on Sunday appeared before the court, after receiving the notice.
The government counsel submitted before the court that in this matter, the convicted can be hanged separately. He said postponing the execution till the mercy plea is decided, will be applied to that convict whose mercy is still pending.
In this matter, seven years have gone by and the convicts are still playing with the judicial machinery, the government counsel added.
Counsel for the convicts opposed the plea of Central Government by submitting that the petition filed in the High Court was not maintainable as the Central Government was never party in this case before the trial court.
He further submitted that neither the Central government, nor the state government, had approached the trial court for issuance of death warrants, but it was the parents of the victim, who had filed a petition in the trial court.
Support Our Journalism
We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism
IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.
