Delhi High Court: Brijesh Sethi, J., dismissed the present petition filed by Mukesh one of the convicts in the Nirbhaya Case.
Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that death warrant had been issued against the petitioner as well as other convicts and the execution of sentence has been fixed for 20-03-2020. Further, he submitted that certain facts had been concealed by the prosecution. It came to his knowledge that petitioner was tortured in jail and had filed several complaints before various authorities regarding the torture of petitioner Mukesh.
Adding to the above, he stated that, Additional Sessions Judge had without applying his mind dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with harsh allegations of filing false averments by the counsel and recommended to the Bar Council for action against the Counsel.
Further arguing, it was stated that, Additional Sessions Judge also did not verify the documents which revealed the torture of petitioner Mukesh. Judgment against petitioner was obtained by fraud by the prosecution by concealing material documents.
Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the State submitted that present revision petition is a misuse of the process of law and has been filed to delay the execution of petitioner’s sentence and other convicts.
Adding to his arguments, he stated that there was nothing on record to suggest that a fraud had been played upon the Court.
Decision of the Court
Court held that no fraud had been played upon the Court. A fair and proper trial had been conducted by Additional Sessions Judge where fair and proper opportunity was given to the petitioner.
Bench stated that the plea of the petitioner is frivolous in nature and in case there was any torture, petitioner could have even written a letter from the jail to the trial court concerned, High Court or he could have brought the fact to the knowledge of his relatives during meetings.
The purpose of the plea in Court’s opinion is to only delay the proceedings and therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted and same is rejected in above view.
Thus, no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the order passed by trial court is found. [Mukesh v.State, Crl. Rev. Petition No. 237 of 2020 & Crl. M.A. No. 5687 of 2020, decided on 18-03-2020]
