Gangrape sentence tomorrow

“Society today feels that no woman in this country is safe… Now it is up to the court to decide and change this,” special prosecutor Dayan Krishnan said in conclusion to his arguments.

Advocate V K Anand,counsel for Mukesh Singh,the younger brother of alleged ringleader Ram Singh who was found dead in his Tihar cell in March,invoked the tragedy of the men’s mother.

“Main iski ma ki taraf se aapse daya ki bheekh mangta hoon,” Anand said.

“His mother has already lost a son. Like the victim’s mother,she too is asking for justice.” Besides,Anand argued,“Mukesh was driving the bus,how could he know what was happening?”

The defence lawyers submitted that all the accused could not be held equally liable. “Death penalty must relate to the criminal and not to the crime,” argued Vivek Sharma,counsel for Pawan Gupta.

The four men — Mukesh,Pawan,Vinay Sharma and Akshay Thakur — were seated in the last row behind a protective wall of policemen,and rose to their feet several times as the arguments progressed. Their families were not present in the court. The parents of the victim were present,and reacted visibly to the arguments being made in a mix of Hindi and English.

“Sentencing is a method to tell society that deviance is not tolerated,” Krishnan said,adding that certain crimes needed to be punished for the sake of punishment,and not with the idea of deterring other criminals or reforming the convicts.

The “grotesque,diabolical,barbaric” crime fell in the rarest of rare category of cases which deserved the death penalty,Krishnan said. The way the men had “tortured” the woman on board the bus showed there was no chance of their reforming,he said.

“In a rape you destroy the very person of a woman,you violate the basis of her existence,but in this case,you brutalise her to such an extent that her entire digestive system was cut open from top to bottom as if you were splitting a fruit. What is the hope for reform of such people?” Krishnan asked.

The defence invoked Mahatma Gandhi,Swami Dayanand and Guru Nanak,and argued that the four men did not deserve death,as they had not taken part in the extreme brutality even though they did have a role in the rape.

“The state should not be allowed to take the simplistic step of execution to show that they are trying to control crimes against women while ignoring the larger issue of women’s safety,” Advocate A P Singh,who represents Vinay and Akshay,said.

Sharma argued that Pawan was only 19,and deserved a second chance. “He was under the influence of alcohol. Accused is of tender age. The possibility of his reform is there,” Sharma said.

He also argued that the gulf between their extreme poverty and the posh south Delhi neighbourhood where they lived could have “affected the mindset” of the accused.

The defence also spoke of “errors” in the investigation by Delhi Police,and referred repeatedly to “political and media pressure”,provoking Additional Sessions Judge Yogesh Khanna to remind them on multiple occasions to “stick to the arguments on sentence”.

Singh said Vinay was a “young boy who has passed Class 12 and is studying in BA despite his deprived background” and had even applied to the Air Force. “This is not someone who is not going to do something good,” Singh said. “When terrorists and others get life imprisonment,why should these boys get death? They are not terrorists or traitors.”

Court dismisses contempt plea against Shinde

Alleging “political pressure” and “interference in the case”,the advocates of the four men convicted in the December 16 gangrape case on Wednesday said contempt proceedings should be initiated against Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde for his statement that death penalty was “assured in this case”.

“How can a minister give an opinion on a sub-judice matter?” advocate V K Anand,who filed the application,said. “The statement of the minister amounts to interference in the administration of justice and thus amounts to contempt of court,” his application said.

Additional Sessions Judge Yogesh Khanna dismissed the plea,and said he could not “stop anyone from saying things to the media”. “You also make statements to the media. How can I control anyone from saying anything?” the judge,who stated that the trial was not affected by any news story,said. The application also drew the ire of public prosecutor Dayan Krishnan.