NEW DELHI: The four convicts in the Nirbhaya gangrape and murder case are “trying the patience of the nation,” the Centre told the Delhi High Court on Sunday, challenging the trial court’s order staying their execution. The court, which was giving a rare Sunday hearing to the matter, has reserved its order.
Nirbhaya’s mother Asha Devi, who has repeatedly questioned if only convicts and not victims of crimes have rights, hoped that the judgement will be delivered on Monday. “Hope it is in our favour, hope it gets us closer to justice,” she told reporters.
The four men — Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta, Mukesh Singh and Akshay Singh — convicted for the 2012 gang-rape and murder of a 23-year-old paramedical student in Delhi, referred to as Nirbhaya, were to be executed on Saturday. But the hanging was postponed indefinitely after one of convicts, Vinay, filed a mercy petition before President Ram Nath Kovind. As his appeal was turned down, another convict, Akshay, filed his mercy plea.
The four convicts, along with two others, had gang-raped the young woman in a moving bus on the night of December 16, 2012. Tortured with an iron rod and thrown off the vehicle, she died on December 29 at a hospital in Singapore. One of the assailants, just short of 18 when the crime was committed, was released after spending three years in a reform home. The main accused, Ram Singh, was found hanging in jail.
The trial court had earlier stayed the death sentence of the four convicts till further orders. Accor-ding to the rules, a convict is given 14 days between the rejection of a mercy plea and his execution.
The original date of execution of the four convicts was January 22, which was deferred after Mukesh’s mercy petition was rejected.
While requesting the High Court to order execution of the two convicts who have exhausted all legal options and whose mercy plea have been turned down, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said : “People are losing faith in the judicial system due to the delays. The convicts are testing the patience of the country. It was a crime that shook the country. It was a devilish and inhumane crime.”
Mr Mehta said if a mercy plea is pending, then delay in execution is only for the person whose mercy plea is pending. “The rules only protect the co-accused when an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. Protection cannot extend to pending mercy petitions.”
Accusing the convicts of “acting in tandem” to “frustrate the very objective of the punishment”, Mr Mehta said Pawan has been filing all kinds of appeals in courts but not the mercy petition.
“Mukesh filed almost his seventh legal proceeding on January 31. Till that point, he had still not filed his mercy plea. This is to deliberately delay the execution.”
Advocate A.P. Singh, who appeared for Akshay, Vinay and Pawan, questioned the ‘haste’ in the matter. “Why only in this case there is a hurry? Justice hurried is justice buried,” he said, adding, “The convicts belong to poor, rural and Dalit families, and hence, cannot be made to bear brunt of ambiguity in the law.”
Mukesh’s lawyer Rebecca John said: “I am standing here today because even death row convicts of heinous crimes are entitled to their rights.”
“The convicts are under no constitutional obligation to hasten the proceedings. You can’t condemn me for using legal remedies,” she added.
Ms John argued that the Centre was never a party in the case proceedings before the trial court.
“While the government was accusing the convict of delay, it has woken up just two days ago,” she said.
Ms John contended that it was the victim’s parents who moved the trial court for issuance of death warrants against the convicts. “At no point, the Central government or the state government approached the trial court to immediately issue death warrants.”
Ms John said: “I’m a horrible person. I’ve committed the worst crimes imaginable but I am still entitled to the protection of the law. You tell me there has been “calculated inaction” on my part. I want to ask what has the government done? Did you file any plea to hurry the process?”
Reading the CrPC, she said, “The High Court has to confirm the sentence of death. The sentencing order of the trial court was one common order for all convicts. The convicts were sentenced by a composite order which was upheld by the HC and the SC. My question is, does the scheme envisage the delinking of the convicts? A common sentence and a common execution. That’s all I’m seeking today.”
Ms John said: “The Centre has no power to de-link the sentence. There is no sentence greater than the death sentence. The Centre does not have the power to execute me separately. After my mercy petition was rejected, the court under Tihar Prison Rules 2018 was obligated to give me 14-day time till the execution. But the court did not separate the orders. If no mercy was pending, how did the other three get benefit when my mercy was rejected. Executions are always common. They cannot be bifurcated.”
