The four convicts in the December 16, 2012, gangrape and murder case are set to be hanged at Tihar Jail at 5.30 am Friday, after the Supreme Court, the High Court as well as a lower court in the Capital Thursday rejected their pleas seeking a stay. In a late-night hearing, the Delhi High Court held that the grounds raised by the counsel of the convicts, including that one of them is a juvenile, had already been dealt with by courts. The hearing on the execution of the death warrants of Mukesh (31), Pawan Gupta (24), Vinay Sharma (25) and Akshay Kumar Singh (33) had gathered pace five months ago, after the victim’s mother moved an application to shift the case from a vacant court, where the matter had remained unheard for months. Their death warrants had been stayed thrice earlier over pending legal remedies. A bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the convicts’ pending pleas in various courts and fora as a ground to stay execution was untenable in law. The High Court’s order came on an appeal by three of the convicts against a trial court judgment, which declined to stay the execution. Standing Counsel (Criminal) Rahul Mehra, appearing for the Delhi government and Tihar jail authorities, opposed their appeal and urged the High Court to dismiss it so that “the execution for tomorrow (Friday) may be upheld”. During the day, Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana, while pronouncing the order on an application by the four, started with a question: “When would the convicts meet the Creator for their eternal penitence?” ASJ Rana said the “issue has been pestering the conscience of the community for past some time” and “the time consumed by the process of law has even led some different voices to timorously question the very efficacy of the rule of law”. “Let me inform all the suspecting souls that in this great land of Gautam Buddha and Gandhi, rule of law, and not impetuous mob mentality, decides the fate of even the most wretched criminals and most abominable crimes.” After the order was pronounced, the victim’s mother told reporters, “I have waited for seven years for this day. My daughter’s soul will find peace.” Akshay’s wife, who recently filed a divorce petition in a local court in Bihar and waited with her son outside the court, broke down and fainted briefly. Later, beating herself with slippers, she said, “I do not want to live. I want to kill myself.” When the hearing began, A P Singh, the lawyer for convicts Akshay, Pawan and Vinay, provided a list of pending petitions, seeking that the proceedings be adjourned sine die. Singh told the court that he had filed a second review petition and a curative petition on behalf of Pawan as well as a criminal complaint against Mandoli jail officials. He also said a petition with the NHRC, a second mercy petition with the President of India, a divorce petition by Akshay’s wife, a writ petition with the Election Commission, two criminal appeals, and an appeal before the International Court of Justice, were pending. Singh said Pawan was yet to avail his legal remedy under Article 72 of the Constitution, which pertains to the President’s powers to grant pardon. The lawyer also told the court that the death sentence needed to be stayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. “All courts are shut. We cannot even get photocopies.” Special Public Prosecutors Irfan Ahmad and Rajiv Mohan argued that “the condemned convicts were deliberately adopting delaying tactics”. The court observed that Akshay and Pawan did not opt to challenge the rejection of their mercy petitions despite ample opportunity, and that it did not find any merit in the contention regarding pendency of subsequent mercy petitions. ASJ Rana said that “the condemned convict cannot be permitted to frustrate the court. by simply opting to remain indolent. It is not the case wherein the convict is either unaware of his rights or is not able to exercise them for want of legal aid”. The Supreme Court too rejected petitions filed by three of the convicts during the day. A six-judge bench of Justices N V Ramana, Arun Mishra, R F Nariman, R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna dismissed the curative petition filed by Pawan, saying, “in our opinion, no case is made out”. Another bench, of Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna, dismissed a petition by Akshay challenging the President’s rejection of his mercy plea. Akshay had also alleged torture in jail and that press interviews given by some leaders had influenced the decision of the President. He submitted the first mercy petition on January 31, had then claimed it was incomplete and submitted a second one on March 18. On his claim about torture, the court said it had already said that this cannot be a ground for review of the President’s decision. It also said, “. it cannot be said that the President of India was influenced by interviews reported in the newspapers”. A bench headed by Justice R Banumathi dismissed a petition by Mukesh, which contended that there was no proper consideration of evidence.
