Nirbhaya case: Death penalty abolition in other countries no ground to erase it in Indian law, says SC

The Supreme Court today said the abolition of death penalty by the British Parliament, several Latin American nations and Australian states was no ground to erase capital punishment from the statutes in India. The apex court, which dismissed the review pleas filed by three of the four death row convicts of the sensational December 16, 2012 Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case, said the courts cannot be held for committing any illegality in awarding capital punishment in "appropriate cases" till death penalty remains in the penal code. 

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan referred to a constitution bench verdict of the apex court and observed that after elaborately considering the existence of death penalty in the penal code, constitutional provisions and international covenant on civil and criminal rights, it was held that death penalty was "constitutionally valid".

The apex court dealt with this issue as advocate A P Singh, appearing for convicts Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar Gupta, had argued before it about abolition of death penalty in India.

"The submission of (A P) Singh that death penalty has been abolished by the Parliament of UK in the year 1966 and several Latin American countries, and Australian states have also abolished death penalty, is no ground to efface death penalty from the statute book of our country," Justice Bhushan, writing the judgement for the bench, said while rejecting the review pleas filed by Vinay and Pawan. Besides these two convicts, the apex court also rejected the review plea of another death-row convict Mukesh.

After the apex court verdict, human rights body Amnesty International India, in a statement, said that executions do not eradicate violence against women and government must allocate adequate resources for effective implementation of laws, improve conviction rates and ensure certainty of justice in all cases. 

"Unfortunately executions do not eradicate violence against women. There is no evidence to show that death penalty acts as a deterrent for sexual violence or any other crime. Instead, the government must allocate adequate resources for the effective implementation of laws, improve conviction rates and ensure certainty of justice in all cases," Asmita Basu, Amnesty International India's Programmes director, said.

The 23-year-old paramedic student was gangraped on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 inside a running bus in South Delhi by six persons and severely assaulted before being thrown out on the road. She had succumbed to injuries on December 29, 2012 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore.

The apex court in its May 5, 2017 verdict had upheld capital punishment awarded to them by the Delhi High Court and the trial court in the case.

Nirbhaya's dying declaration valid: SC 

The Supreme Court reiterated today that the three sets of dying declarations of the December 16 gangrape victim Nirbhaya, including the one made through gestures, were "true, voluntary and consistent".

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the trial court, high court and the apex court elaborately considered the dying declarations during the trial of the case and the convicts could not be allowed to raise the same issues again. "All the three dying declarations having been relied (on) by trial court, high court and this court and all arguments attacking the dying declarations having been considered and rejected, in its judgment dated May 5, 2017, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issues which were already considered and expressly rejected by this court," the bench, also comprising Justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan, said.

The apex court dismissed the review petitions filed by three of the four convicts Mukesh (31), Pawan Gupta (24) and Vinay Sharma (25), saying no ground has been made out by them for a review of the top court verdict of May 5 last year. The three dying declarations of the victim were recorded. The first declaration was recorded by a doctor when she was admitted to hospital on the night of December 16, 2012 and the second on December 21 by a sub-divisional magistrate during which she gave exact details of the crime.

The third declaration was recorded by a metropolitan magistrate on December 25 and was mostly through gestures. The bench said that as far as the third dying declaration is concerned, this court has already held that the dying declaration made through signs, gestures or by nods are admissible as evidence. It also rejected the claim of one of the convicts, Vinay, that he was juvenile at the time of the incident.
The convicts had challenged the validity of the dying declaration and claimed that there were discrepancies in her statement.

With regard to the second declaration, the counsel appearing for the convicts submitted that in the police diary there was no mention of it. The woman was raped on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012 in a running bus in south Delhi by six persons. She was also severely assaulted before being thrown out on the road. She succumbed to the injuries at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore on December 29, 2012.
The fourth death row convict in the case, Akshay Kumar Singh (31), did not file a review petition against the Supreme Court's May 5, 2017 verdict. One of the accused in the case, Ram Singh, had allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail here.

A juvenile accused was convicted by a juvenile justice board. He was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.