Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Putting the last nail in the coffin for the Nirbhaya death row convicts who were hanged this morning, the 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ dismissed the plea file by Pawan Kumar Gupta challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President on the ground that his plea of juvenility had not been finally determined and this aspect was not kept in view by the President of India while rejecting his mercy plea.

The hearing that took place late at night at 2:30 AM.

The Court rejected Pawan’s plea of juvenility and held that the said plea has already been duly considered and rejected by the Courts before and there was no need to go into it again.

On the contention that due to torture in the prison the petitioner had sustained head injuries and that he was sutured with more than 10 sutures and proper treatment was not given to the petitioner, the Court held,

“The alleged torture, if any, in the prison cannot be a ground for judicial review of the executive order passed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India rejecting the mercy petition.”

On the ground that petitioner might not have shared the common intention along with other co­-accused and that he cannot be imposed the grave capital punishment, the Court said that the said ground has been considered both by the Trial Court as well as the High Court and by this Court and the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta has been found guilty and convicted.

Hence, dismissing the petition the Court concluded,

“when the power is vested in the very high contitutional authority, it must be presumed that the said authority had acted carefully after considering all the aspects of the matter.”

The 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before being thrown out on the road. She died on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore. The friend with whom Nirbhaya boarded the bus was also beaten, gagged and knocked unconscious with an iron rod by the accused. He suffered broken limbs but survived.

[Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi,  2020 SCC OnLine SC 340, decided on 20.03.2020]


Also read:

[Midnight Hearing of the Gruesome – Nirbhaya Case] |Petition of death row convict Pawan Gupta against rejection of his mercy petition and seeking stay on execution — dismissed

7 years later, finally, a closure for Nirbhaya’s family; All 4 convicts hanged to death

Hot Off The PressNews

LIVE UPDATES OF LATE NIGHT HEARING

Justice Manmohan to AP Singh: We’re close to the time when your client will meet the God. Don’t waste time. We’ll not be able to help you in the eleventh hour if you cannot raise an important point. You have only 4-5 hours. If you have a point then come to it. [ANI]

“Law favours those who take timely action. For 2 and a half years till March 4, 2020, what have you been doing? You are blaming us? It is already 10.45 pm, execution is at 5.30 am. Give us a substantive point.”

Bench tells advocate AP Singh, time is running out, there is not enough time.

Delhi HC says divorce plea of convict Akshay Kumar Singh’s wife not relevant to stay execution. [PTI]

These are death warrants. This is the fourth one. Some sanctity should be given to them: Court [ANI]

Advocate AP Singh says, justice hurried is justice buried. Court says to Singh, you have not raised a single legal point.

We find no foundation in your plea says Delhi High Court.

Delhi High Court dismisses the petition filed by the death row convicts. To be hanged tomorrow morning at 5.30 a.m.

Lawyer Shams Khawaja, appearing for convicts, begins making submissions.[ANI]

President of India at an event made public his sentiments that death row convicts in sexual assault cases do not deserve mercy. He was prejudiced against us even before the first mercy plea. [ANI]

Court: Once a Judge signs a Judgment, he cannot touch that again. You want to carry on, go on! We will sit here till 5.30 am and pass the judgment. Be our guest to take it beyond 5.30 am and then we will pass the judgment.

Court expresses displeasure over lawyers continuing arguments.

Delhi High Court says no foundation has been given in the petition. It has been filed without any index, list of dates, memo of parties, annexures or any affidavits. [ANI]

Advocate A.P. Singh representing the Convicts says: “Will go to Supreme Court when I get the order copy. I have spoken to Registrar, I will go to him.”

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ rejected the plea filed by Akshay Kumar Singh, one of the convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder case, who had  challenged the order of rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India, inter alia, on various grounds that the settled principles of consideration of mercy petition have not been followed.

“we do not find any ground to hold that there was non-application of mind by the President of India. Insofar as the alleged torture of the petitioner in the prison”

Regarding the alleged torture in the prison, the Court said it cannot be a ground for review of the order of rejection of the Mercy Petition by the President of India.

On the ground that the Press interviews given by the persons in position of authority reported in the newspapers have influenced the decision of the President of India in rejection of the mercy petition, the Court said that

“when the decision has been taken by the highest constitutional authority like the President of India it cannot be said that the President of India was influenced by such interviews reported in the newspapers.”

It was also argued before the Court that the wife of the petitioner has filed divorce petition and the same is pending consideration and that if the death warrants scheduled for 20.03.2020 is executed what will be 4 the fate of the wife who has filed the divorce petition who has averred that she does not want to live as a widow of death row convict. On this the Court said,

“The divorce petition said to have been filed by the wife of the petitioner and the petitions filed by the petitioner before the Lieutenant Governor and Chief Minister of Delhi under Sections 432 and 433 Cr.P.C. cannot a ground for exercise of judicial review of the order of the President of India rejecting the Mercy Petition.”

Three of the four death row convicts in the Delhi gangrape case, including Gupta, had also approached the International Court of Justice (ICJ) earlier this month, seeking a stay on the execution of their death sentence.

All four accused are scheduled to be hanged tomorrow. 

The 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before being thrown out on the road. She died on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore. Besides Mukesh, three others – Akshay, Vinay, and Pawan are facing the gallows for the heinous crime that shook the entire nation. One of the six accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail here.

On July 9, 2018 , the Court had dismissed the review pleas filed by the three convicts in the case, saying no grounds have been made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict.

On December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ rejected the review petition of the last convict, Akshay Kumar Singh, seeking modification and leniency.

On January 21, 2020, the 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya Gang rape case where he “reagitated” the plea of juvenility.

Another accused, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in March 2013 during the trial. Another convict, who was a minor at the time of the crime, was sent to a reform facility and released after three years of the crime.

[Akshay Kumar Singh v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No.121 of 2020, decided on 19.03.2020]


Also Read:

Nirbhaya Gangrape Case: Story From A Different World Where Humanity Has Been Treated With Irreverence

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Court has dismissed the curative petition of Pawan Gupta, one of the convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder case, who had moved the court against the dismissal of his review plea. In his petition, Pawan has claimed that he was juvenile at the time of the crime in 2012.

This comes as Gupta, along with three other convicts, Mukesh Singh, Akshay Singh Thakur, and Vinay Sharma. are scheduled to be hanged on March 20 at 5.30 am.

Three of the four death row convicts in the Delhi gangrape case, including Gupta, had also approached the International Court of Justice (ICJ) earlier this month, seeking a stay on the execution of their death sentence.

The 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before being thrown out on the road. She died on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore. Besides Mukesh, three others – Akshay, Vinay, and Pawan are facing the gallows for the heinous crime that shook the entire nation. One of the six accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail here.

On July 9, 2018 , the Court had dismissed the review pleas filed by the three convicts in the case, saying no grounds have been made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict.

On December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ rejected the review petition of the last convict, Akshay Kumar Singh, seeking modification and leniency.

On January 21, 2020, the 3-judge bench of R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna, JJ had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya Gang rape case where he “reagitated” the plea of juvenility.

A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board and was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term. Two of the convicts are yet to file curative petitions before the Supreme Court.

Another accused, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in March 2013 during the trial. Another convict, who was a minor at the time of the crime, was sent to a reform facility and released after three years of the crime.

(Source: ANI)


Also Read:

Nirbhaya Gangrape Case: Story From A Different World Where Humanity Has Been Treated With Irreverence

Hot Off The PressNews

As reported by media, Three of the convicts in Nirbhaya Gang Rape and Murder case have approached the International Court of Justice to stay the execution of their death sentence that is to be awarded on 20-03-2020.

The three convicts are Akshay Singh, Pawan Gupta and Vinay Sharma.


[Source: ANI]


Also Read:

Nirbhaya Gangrape Case: Story From A Different World Where Humanity Has Been Treated With Irreverence

Breaking | Nirbhaya Gang Rape-Murder Case | Death Warrant Issued To The 4 Convicts By Delhi’s Patiala House Court

Nirbhaya Gang Rape – Murder Case | Breaking | Delhi HC Refuses To Set Aside Trial Court’s Order; Convicts To Be Hanged Together

Nirbhaya Gang Rape – Murder Case | All 4 Convicts To Be Hanged On 03-03-2020 — Death Warrants Issued

Nirbhaya Gang Rape And Murder Case | Response Sought From Tihar Jail Authorities On Convict Vinay’s Plea For Medical Treatment Regarding Mental Illness

Del HC | Petition Dismissed Seeking Directions To NHRC To Intervene And Enquire Into Mental And Physical State Of 4 Death Row Convicts In Nirbhaya Case

Breaking | Nirbhaya Gang-Rape Murder Case | Delhi Court sets the execution date of Nirbhaya Convicts to be — 20-03-2020

Hot Off The PressNews

A Delhi Court postpones the execution of death convicts in the Nirbhaya case till further orders. The execution which was scheduled for tomorrow i.e. 01-02-2020 has now stayed.

Additional Sessions Judge Dharmendra Rana reserved its order on the two applications moved by the counsel of the convicts – A.P. Singh and Vrinda Grover.

During the course of hearing, Singh (Counsel for the convicts) said that a mercy plea has been filed on behalf of one of the convicts – Vinay Kumar.

Saying only one convict’s plea is pending and the others can be hanged, Tihar Jail authorities challenged the application of three condemned prisoners in the case seeking a stay on their execution.

The convicts’ lawyer disagreed with the jail authorities and said rules dictate that when one convict’s plea is pending the others cannot be hanged.

Tihar jail authorities filed a status report in the matter and informed the court that the convicts can be hanged separately adding that convict Mukesh Singh has exhausted all the legal remedies available to him.

Advocate Seema Kushwaha, representing the victim’s side, said that the convicts herein are adopting delay tactics to thwart the speed of justice.

[Story to be updated]


[Source: Media Reports]

[Image Credits: ANI]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner could be considered again for premature release only after he underwent the requisite period of imprisonment in terms of the policy of Premature Release dated 12-4-2002.

The petitioner approached the Court seeking quashing of the order whereby the case of the petitioner for his premature release had been rejected. The petitioner was convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 148 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act whereby he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment.  The petitioner had preferred an appeal challenging his conviction which was dismissed vide judgment dated 20-4-2009.

The premature release of the petitioner was declined by the State of Haryana since his case fell under Para 2(a)(xi), (xii) & (xiv) which corresponds to danger to public safety and heinous crime of the policy. The petitioner was involved in eight other criminal offences of murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, Arms Act, conspiracy, etc. He had been a parole jumper twice and thus he was considered to be a danger to public safety.

Also, his case should be considered after 14 years of actual sentence including under trial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remission is not less than 20 years. The petitioner had completed twelve years one month and twenty-eight days of actual sentence including under trial period.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his case was squarely covered under policy dated 12-4-2002 issued by Government of Haryana which was applicable to the petitioner.

The learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner has remained involved in as many as 9 cases, which indicated that the petitioner was a habitual offender, thus, disentitling him for any benefit of premature release. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had also committed two jail offences regarding which FIR was registered.

High Court held that the convict could not claim his premature release as a matter of right and it is only if his case is squarely covered under the policy in existence at the time of conviction of the accused that he may be considered for his premature release. Such concession of premature release would only be extended to the convict keeping in view various factors including his conduct, behavior, antecedents and the likelihood of breach of peace in the eventuality of his release, etc. Further as per Para 4 of the policy dated 12-4-2002, the conduct during the last 5 years from the date of his eligibility for consideration of a premature release would be considered. The petitioner having been involved in the offence under Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 in the year 2012 was disentitled to be considered during the next 5 years thus the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner was justified. As such, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order.

In view of the above-noted facts, the instant petition was dismissed and the recommendation of the State Level Committee against the premature release of the petitioner would be reconsidered after completion of 14 years actual sentence and 20 years total sentence as per policy dated 12-04-2002.[Parvesh v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1760, decided on 18-09-2019]

Hot Off The PressNews

SEBI Special Court convicted four directors of the Roofers Realty Limited for not complying with the summons issued by the investigating authority of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). SEBI had launched investigation into alleged illegal mobilization of funds from the public by Roofers Realty Limited. The investigating Authority appointed by the Board had summoned four directors of the company, viz., Mr. Sauravmoy Ghosh, Jayanti Sounth, Hirak Nath Sounth and Khudiram Sounth to appear before the Authority in relation to the aforesaid investigation. Despite receiving the summons, the directors did not appear before the investigating authority.

Therefore, SEBI launched prosecution proceedings against the aforesaid persons under Section 11C (6) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The Special Court convicted the accused on the ground that the directors failed to appear before the investigating authority despite due receipt of the summons. The Court sentenced three directors, viz. Mr. Sauravmoy Ghosh, Jayanti Sounth and Hirak Nath Sounth to one year simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rupees Five Lakhs. The Court has also imposed a fine of Rs 2,50,000 on Mr Khudiram Sounth considering his old age.


PR No.: 18/2019

[Press Release dt. 26-07-2019]

Securities and Exchange Board of India

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of V.K. Tahilramani, Acting CJ and M.S. Sonak, J. dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of petitioner’s application for grant of furlough.

The petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341 and 397 IPC. He preferred an application for furlough, which was rejected. The petitioner preferred an appeal thereagainst, which too was dismissed. Aggrieved thus, the petitioner filed the instant criminal writ petition. The application of the petitioner to be released on furlough came to be rejected in view of Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The said rule provides that the prisoners convicted under Sections 392 to 402 IPC (both inclusive) shall not be eligible for grant of furlough.

The High Court, referring to earlier decisions, observed that Rule 4(2) is valid and intra vires and not vulnerable to challenge to the charge of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In offences falling under the said sections, it would be hazardous to release convicts on furlough because when one abandons honest labour for the career of theft or intimidation coupled with violence, it tends to become a way of life and the temptation is too great to resist when the prisoner is at large. The offences of dacoity and robbery fall within a class by themselves. Thus, the classification is based on the danger inherent in releasing such prisoners and has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In view of the same, the High Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petition was, accordingly, dismissed. [Sunil Gaurishankar Kharwar v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2450, dated 07-08-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

“There has to be an error apparent on the face of record leading to miscarriage of justice to exercise the review jurisdiction under Article 137.”

Supreme Court: While envisaging the essence of Article 137 of the Constitution of India by stating that “Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced or made, subject, of course, to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rule made under Article 145 of the Constitution”,  the bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan JJ. dismissed the review petition of the rape convicts of the most barbaric gangrape and murder case that the 21st century had witnessed.

Relying on the case of P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680, the bench stated that review in a criminal proceeding is permissible only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. Similarly in Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 2 SCC 501, it was held that review is not the rehearing of the appeal all over again. The review is not an appeal in disguise. By citing the above-mentioned cases, the only premise that the bench formed was that to maintain a review petition ‘miscarriage of justice’ is a necessity to be shown.

Therefore, while hearing the submissions made by the petitioners, the bench stated that the courts below had considered all the three dying declarations made by the victim and heard the arguments of the petitioners which were rejected. The Court was of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issues which were already considered and expressly rejected by the Apex Court earlier.

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition and stated that the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-argue the appeal on merits of the case by pointing out shreds of evidence which were already looked into by the trial court, High Court and this Court. The present review petition has been unable to present any grounds on which the review jurisdiction can be exercised by this Court under Article 137. [Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine SC 673, decided on 09-07-2018]