December 16 gangrape: Supreme Court says no change in amicus curiae

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the plea of the four convicts in the Nirbhaya rape and murder case for changing two senior lawyers Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay Hedge, appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan said their appointment will continue, but they cannot represent the appellants in any manner. Though arguments were to continue from 2 pm to 6 pm, they were concluded at 5.15 pm and will be continued on Friday.

The 23-year-old paramedic was brutally gangraped on the night of December 16, 2012 by six persons in a moving bus in south Delhi and thrown out of the vehicle with her male friend. She later died in a Singapore hospital on December 29, 2012. The prime accused in the case, Ram Singh, was found dead in Tihar Jail and the trial against him was abated. The sixth accused, a juvenile at the time of the rape-cum-murder, was released from custody in December after serving out his three-year sentence.

Earlier, both Mr Ramachandran and Mr Hedge told court that they are embarrassed and have been put in an awkward position as the convicts did not want them because they had appeared in the media on this issue and expressed their views. They said it was up to the court to continue with them or not. The convicts argued that the two lawyers are biased against them and cannot be appointed.

Counsel M.L. Sharma, meanwhile, began his final arguments in the appeals filed by four convicts seeking to quash the Delhi high court verdict confirming the death sentence awarded to them for the December 16, 2012 incident. The convicts — Vinay Sharma (21), Akshay Thakur (29), Mukesh (27) and Pawan Gupta (20) — were awarded death sentence and the apex court had stayed their execution.

The Delhi high court had upheld their conviction and award of death penalty by terming the offence as “extremely fiendish” and “unparalleled in the history of criminal jurisprudence” and said the “exemplary punishment” was the need of the hour.

Mr Sharma submitted that there was no “substance or material piece of evidence” and there were contradictions in the depositions of the victim and her friend, who had accompanied her in the bus, about the offence and the offenders. He argued that the testimony of the SDM cannot be relied on as she had deposed that the victim was “comfortable, happy and willing to record her statement.”

Disputing the veracity of the dying declaration of the victim, the counsel argued that she was not fit enough to record her statement and hence, the statement made through gestures cannot be relied upon.