English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Nirbhaya case: Dec 16 rapists to hang, Supreme Court rejects review petitions of death row convicts

Published

on

Nirbhaya case accused

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld its judgment on the death sentence of three of the four convicts in the December 16, 2012 Delhi gangrape case that came to called also as the ‘Nirbhaya’ case after the name given to the victim.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R Banumathi, delivering its verdict on the pleas filed by Mukesh (31), Pawan Gupta (31) and Vinay Sharma (25), said the convicts had failed to point out “error” in the judgment. The court added that the convicts were heard elaborately during appeals and no grounds were made out for review of the verdict.

The fourth convict, Akshay Thakur (31), did not file a review plea. Advocate AP Singh, representing Akshay Thakur, had told PTI, “Akshay has not filed a review petition yet. We will be filing it.” He has been granted three weeks by the top court to do so.

Last year, the top court had upheld the death sentence awarded to the four convicts by the Delhi High Court and the trial court in the gangrape and murder of a 23-year-old paramedic student on December 16, 2012, in the national capital. The 23-year-old paramedic student, returning from a movie, boarded a chartered bus in New Delhi’s Saket area and was subsequently brutally raped and murdered by six people.

While one of the accused, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar jail, another accused, a juvenile, was convicted by the juvenile justice and sent to three years in probation to a reform home. The juvenile, whose name is not known (legally, he cannot be named) is already out and has melted into the population, carrying his criminal mind and past. Ironically, the juvenile, who was said to be the most cruel of the lot in the murder, has also been given enough vocational training to support himself independently.

Backgrounder

While the 2012 Nirbhaya case has become the centrepiece of all judgments related to violence on women in India, the first instance of the Supreme Court’s capital punishment (to all four accused) verdict, delivered on May 5, 2017, went through several petitions.

While the Nirbhaya case saw expression of massive outrage, protests and a movement, in the six years since things appear to have taken a turn for the worse with gang rapes, torture and murders, even on girls as young as 8 (the Kathua gang rape and murder case) as horrific as the Nirbhaya case and more, have been reported from across the country.

The general perception was that deterrent legal action was so slow in India that the fear of punishment has all but vanished. Today’s judgment could be one in a series of final verdicts that the public wants to be fast-tracked.

Timeline

December 16, 2012: 23-year-old paramedic student, now known as Nirbhaya, returning home with her friend in Delhi got a lift from a chartered bus (empty, except for driver and helpers) and is gang-raped, brutally assaulted by six men and dumped in a grievously injured state. Her friend was brutally beaten up and left for dead.

December 17, 2012: Delhi Police identify four men who raped and assaulted her — bus driver Ram Singh, his brother Mukesh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta. Doctors declared the woman suffered grave internal injuries.

December 18, 2012: Ram Singh and three others are arrested.

December 29, 2012: Nirbhaya succumbs to her injuries at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore where she was transported by the government for further treatment.

December 21, 2012: Accused juvenile is arrested from Anand Vihar bus terminal in Delhi. The woman’s friend identifies Mukesh as one of the culprits. Police conduct raids in Haryana and Bihar to nab the sixth accused, Akshay Thakur.

December 22, 2012: Akshay Thakur is arrested in Bihar and brought to Delhi. Victim records her statement before the SDM in hospital.

January 2, 2013: The then Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir inaugurates fast track court for speedy trial in sexual offence cases.

January 3, 2013: Police files charge-sheet against five adult accused for offences including murder, gang rape, attempt to murder, kidnapping, unnatural offences and dacoity.

February 28, 2013: Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) frames rape, murder charges against the juvenile accused.

March 11, 2013: Bus driver Ram Singh is found hanging in his cell in Tihar jail.

August 31, 2013: JJB convicts the juvenile for gang rape and murder and awards three years term at a probation home.

September 13, 2013: Fast track court awards death to all four convicts. Trial court refers the case to Delhi High Court for confirmation of death sentence.

March 13, 2014: The Delhi High Court justices Reva Khetrapal and Pratibha Rani uphold the death sentences awarded to the four convicts.

December 18, 2015: Delhi High Court refuses to stay the release of the juvenile. He walks out of a correction home after spending three years.

April 3, 2016: Supreme Court begins hearing in the case.

April 8, 2016: Senior advocates Raju Ramchandran and Sanjay Hegde appointed amicus curiae.

May 5, 2016: SC upholds death penalty of four accused – Akshay Thakur, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta and Mukesh Singh.

November 7, 2016: Advocate Raju Ramchandran argues for sentencing order to be set aside.

November 28, 2016: Advocate Sanjay Hegde argues against reliability of evidence in the case.

February 3, 2017: Supreme Court decides to rehear the case on the sentencing aspect, after the petitioners contend that there has been violation in procedure.

March 6, 2017: All the accused submit additional affidavits in court.

March 27, 2017: The SC reserves verdict after nearly a year of hearing the case.

May 5, 2017: The Supreme Court pronounces judgement in the case upholding the death sentence of all 4 accused.

November 13, 2017: The convicts appeal to the Supreme Court to review their sentence claiming that it was cold-blooded killing in the name of justice.

May 4, 2018: Supreme Court upholds the order on the plea of two convicts seeking a review of its 2017 verdict upholding the death penalty awarded to them.

India News

Dhruv Rathee gets fresh summons in 2018 BJP IT cell video case

YouTuber Dhruv Rathee has received fresh summons from a Delhi court in a 2018 criminal defamation case filed by Vikas Pandey over a video concerning the BJP IT Cell. The matter will next be heard on October 17.

Published

on

Dhruv Rathi

YouTuber Dhruv Rathee has received fresh summons from a Delhi court in a criminal defamation case linked to his 2018 video titled “BJP IT Cell Part 2”. The complaint was filed by Vikas Pandey, who alleged that the video contained defamatory claims about him.

The latest court action follows renewed efforts to serve Rathee with the summons while he is in India. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on October 17.

Judicial Magistrate Rahul Jain of the Saket District Court passed the order on October 12. The fresh summons were issued after the complainant’s lawyer informed the court that Rathee, who usually resides abroad, was in India in connection with the ongoing Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests in Delhi.

What is the case against Dhruv Rathee?

The criminal defamation complaint concerns Rathee’s video, “BJP IT Cell Part 2”, which was published in 2018.

Pandey, who founded the social media page “I Support Narendra Modi”, alleged that Rathee’s video accused him of being associated with the BJP IT Cell and offering Rs 50 lakh through an intermediary to Mahavir Prasad. According to the complaint, the money was allegedly offered to persuade Prasad to withdraw allegations that the BJP IT Cell spreads fake news.

These claims form part of the complainant’s allegations. The court’s issuance of summons does not establish that the allegations against Rathee are true or amount to a finding of guilt.

Why has the court issued fresh summons?

According to the court proceedings, the complainant’s side had been attempting to serve Rathee with summons for several years. The court had initially summoned him through an order dated July 23, 2019, but the process of serving the summons had faced delays.

The complainant’s lawyer sought an earlier hearing after learning that Rathee was in India. The application argued that his presence in the country offered an opportunity to complete the service of summons without further delay.

The court subsequently directed that fresh summons be issued. The latest report states that the summons were served at Rathee’s Gurugram residence during his visit to India.

How is Arvind Kejriwal linked to the case?

The case also involved Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal, who had re-shared Rathee’s video on X, then known as Twitter, in 2018.

Pandey filed a separate complaint against Kejriwal over the re-sharing of the video. The Delhi High Court later declined to quash the summons issued to Kejriwal.

In February 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the trial court proceedings against Kejriwal in the matter. During the proceedings, his lawyer told the court that Kejriwal acknowledged making a mistake by re-tweeting the video.

The proceedings against Rathee continued, leading to the fresh summons issued by the Saket court.

What happens next?

The case is scheduled for its next hearing on October 17. The proceedings concern the pending criminal defamation complaint and the steps taken to serve Rathee with the court’s summons.

The allegations in the complaint remain allegations unless established through the legal process.

Continue Reading

India News

Supreme Court questions EC over missing records in Sringeri election dispute

The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission over missing video footage of the 2023 counting in Karnataka’s Sringeri constituency. The case involves a revised result following a recount of postal ballots.

Published

on

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its inability to locate video recordings of the original vote counting in Karnataka’s Sringeri Assembly constituency in 2023. The court said it would not accept what it described as “lame excuses” and directed the poll body to produce whatever records are available at the next hearing.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva expressed displeasure after the Election Commission’s counsel informed it that the footage of the original counting could not be traced.

The bench also warned that it could draw an adverse inference if the required documents were not produced.

Questioning how the poll body could lose records relating to an election it had conducted, the judges stressed that maintaining election documentation was central to its responsibilities.

“How can the Election Commission of India say that it has lost the records? Your whole purpose is to hold an election, and you need to have a document. Where is the question of you saying we are trying to trace it?” the bench asked.

“We will not accept these kinds of lame excuses,” it added.

What is the Sringeri election dispute?

The case stems from the 2023 Karnataka Assembly election in Sringeri, where Congress leader TD Rajegowda was initially declared the winner.

The result was challenged by BJP candidate Jeevaraj before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court later ordered a recount of postal ballots, including the reverification of 279 rejected postal votes.

Following the recount, the Returning Officer declared a revised result in which Jeevaraj was declared the winner. Rajegowda then approached the Supreme Court to challenge the revised outcome.

In May, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to Rajegowda, directing that he continue as the Member of the Legislative Assembly while his plea remained pending.

Rajegowda seeks counting records and observer’s report

Rajegowda has sought access to the election observer’s report and video recordings of both the original counting conducted in 2023 and the recount held this year.

The missing original counting footage became a point of concern during Wednesday’s hearing, with the bench questioning the Election Commission’s inability to trace the recording.

The court directed the Commission to submit whatever records it possesses at the next hearing. Its warning about a possible adverse inference underscores the importance the bench attached to the production of the requested documents.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for February 15, 2027.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi joins India Gate protest by Ankita Bhandari’s parents

Rahul Gandhi joined the protest by Ankita Bhandari’s parents at India Gate in New Delhi on October 14. The demonstration has brought renewed attention to the 2022 murder case and the family’s concerns following Dushyant Gautam’s appointment as Sikkim Governor.

Published

on

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi joined a protest by the parents of Ankita Bhandari at India Gate in New Delhi on Wednesday, October 14, bringing renewed attention to the 2022 murder case from Uttarakhand.

The family’s demonstration follows the appointment of Dushyant Gautam, a former BJP leader associated with the party’s Uttarakhand organisation, as Governor of Sikkim. The appointment has prompted objections from Ankita’s family and political leaders, who have raised concerns about the case and the demand for justice.

Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also met the family, according to reports.

Why Ankita Bhandari’s family is protesting

Ankita Bhandari, 19, worked as a receptionist at a resort in Uttarakhand. She was murdered in September 2022, and the case triggered widespread public anger and demands for accountability.

The protest has returned to the spotlight amid questions raised by the family and activists over the alleged role of a VIP in the case. These allegations and demands should be distinguished from findings established through the criminal proceedings.

Dushyant Gautam’s appointment as Sikkim Governor has become a fresh point of contention because his name has been linked to allegations surrounding the alleged VIP connection. Such allegations should not be treated as proof of involvement in the crime.

Political reactions and demand for justice

Rahul Gandhi’s participation brought the Congress leadership into the family’s latest protest in the national capital. The demonstration reflects continuing demands for accountability and further clarity over the concerns raised by the family.

The case has remained a subject of public and political debate, including questions about the investigation and the alleged VIP connection. The family’s concerns and the political reactions have renewed attention on the demand for justice for Ankita Bhandari.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com