|  |  | 

India Top Headlines

Nirbhaya condemns to live a little longer | India News


NEW DELHI: Any convicted convict should not meet his creator with a complaint within him that the courts of this country had not acted fairly by granting him the opportunity to exhaust all his legal remedies, a Delhi court said on Monday while postponed, until further orders and for the third time, the hanging of the four convicted in the case of Nirbhaya gangrape and murder.

On February 17, the court had said that the execution would take place at 6 am on March 3.

After Monday’s hearing began, additional session judge Dharmender Rana initially rejected a request to defer execution. But subsequently, he was informed that one of the convicted had filed a petition for mercy with the President after the rejection of his curative petition in the Supreme Court.

“Where there is a right, there is a remedy”

The enigma of executing the death sentence against the damned does not seem to be over. Half an hour after the dismissal of Pawan and Akshay’s request that they sought to postpone the hanging, his lawyer (AP Singh) informed the court that Pawan’s plea for mercy had been presented to the President of India, ”observed the cut.

When the court turned to special prosecutor Irfan Ahmed, he said that, according to a provision of the Delhi Prison Rules, it is up to the government to decide whether or not to stay. “This hiding game in the name of the defense must be handled with hard hands,” he said.

Previously, the court asked Singh to show him the rule that explicitly stated that the declaration of clemency could only be submitted after the dismissal of the curator. He also asked about the provision at the current stage for the court to interfere. “Under what provision will the court come to your rescue?” he asked but could not find an answer from the lawyer. Singh urged the court that he had the only option of going to court since he had only issued death warrants.

In its order, the court indicated that it would be “axiomatic to affirm that the extreme penalty of capital punishment is irreversible in nature.” For the court, the appeal of the declaration of clemency is an important legal remedy available to the convict and guided by the precious legal principle Ubi jus ubi remedium: where there is a right, there is a remedy. “I am of the opinion that the application is very easy to maintain,” said the court.

Even following a prison rule, a trial court is required to set the date of rejection following a petition for mercy by an inmate. “Therefore, it is not correct to say that the execution of the punishment is an exclusive matter of the executive branch and that the court has no control over it,” he said. Despite the “strong resistance” on the victim’s side, the court felt it was right to defer scheduled hanging “to new orders.” The court said: “I am of the opinion that the death sentence cannot be executed until the conviction of the convicted person is dismissed.”

Original source