Nirbhaya Case: SC Dismisses Convict Mukesh's Plea, To Be Hanged As Scheduled On February 1

General News

On Wednesday, a three-judge Supreme Court bench dismissed the Nirbhaya case convict Mukesh's plea against the President's rejection of his mercy petition.

Written By Akhil Oka | Mumbai | Updated On:

On Wednesday, a three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna dismissed the review plea of Mukesh, a convict in the Nirbhaya case against President Ram Nath Kovind's rejection of his mercy petition. While advocates Anjana Prakash and Rebecca John argued for Mukesh, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the prosecution. The bench ruled that the President had taken into consideration all documents before rejecting the plea. It found no merit in the convict’s plea. This implies that he has no further remedy left now and will be hanged on February 1 at 6 am. 

Read: Nirbhaya Case: Mother Confident Of Convicts' Hanging On February 1, Slams Delaying Tactics

What is the Nirbhaya case?

A 23-year-old paramedic student Nirbhaya was gang-raped inside a running bus by six persons on December 16, 2012, in Delhi. The victim was severely assaulted and thrown out on the road along with her male friend and succumbed to injuries a few days later. Out of the six convicts, one committed suicide in prison, while another, a juvenile, served maximum punishment of three years in a reform home and was set free in 2015. The remaining four rapists were convicted and handed the death penalty by a trial court in 2013, confirmed by the Delhi High Court in March 2014. The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's verdict in 2017. 

Read: Nirbhaya Case: One Of Four Convicts Approaches SC With Curative Plea

Arguments in the SC on Mukesh's plea

Initially, Anjana Prakash urged the bench to invoke judicial conscience as to whether due consideration was given by the President. Maintaining that presidential power was prone to human fallibility, she contended that pardon was not an act of grace but part of the Constitutional scheme. Moreover, she alleged that Mukesh had been kept in solitary confinement even before his mercy plea was rejected, which was in alleged violation of norms.  

Read: Nirbhaya Case: SC Reserves Verdict On Review Plea Of Convict Against Mercy Plea Rejection

In an astonishing claim, Prakash stated that her client had been sexually abused in jail. Moreover, she claimed that co-accused Ram Singh had been murdered. Additionally, she said that the President had rejected his mercy plea without examining all relevant documents such as the trial court judgment. Advocate John pointed out that the President had rejected his petition only hours after the Ministry of Home Affairs forwarded it.  

On the other hand, Mehta submitted an affidavit on the documents that were sent to the President. Stressing that the jurisdiction of the apex court was very limited in such a matter, he also mentioned that the allegations of abuse could not be a ground for granting mercy. Thereafter, the Solicitor General opined that it was dehumanizing to allow such delays. Despite the request of Mukesh’s advocates to peruse the documents pertaining to the rejection of mercy plea, the bench rejected this and reserved its verdict on Tuesday. 

Read: Nirbhaya Case: Dummy Execution Of Four Convicts Performed In Tihar


First Published:
By 2030, 40% Indians will not have access to drinking water