The counsel for two of the death row convicts said he was happy with the direction in which things were moving and was all praises for the way the Supreme Court had been hearing the case. This despite their appeals against conviction and death sentence being pending for two years now.
Advocate A. P. Singh, the counsel for Vinay and Akshay, said he was more than happy with the way the apex court had been hearing him and the Amicus Curiae.
‘No grudges’
“I have absolutely no grudges. Our death sentence was stayed in 2014, but the Supreme Court has been hearing our appeals on a day-to-day basis, even on a Saturday. The court has heard me at length on various aspects, including evidence,” he said.
Asked about media reports that cited his unhappiness with the apex court appointing senior advocates Raju Ramachandrana and Sanjay Hegde as Amicus Curiae in the case, Mr. Singh said, “They are assisting the court in the best possible manner. I have no complaints.”
Vibhor Anand, the counsel for Ram Singh — who committed suicide in Tihar Jail — and his brother Mukesh before the trial court, said, “They are doing a great job.”
“The Amicus Curiae are pointing out lacunae in the prosecution case,” said Mr. Anand.
Interestingly, the December 16 case is one where all lawyers in the district court staged a protest and declared that they would not represent the accused.
Only later did advocate M. L. Sharma, A. P. Singh and Vibhor Anand volunteer to represent the five adult accused. Mr. Sharma and Mr. Singh also made statements saying that girls themselves were responsible for their safety.
Four years later, the apex court appointed Amicus Curiae to assist it in hearing the appeals filed by convicts, saying they were not represented properly and needed to be defended by more experienced criminal lawyers to ensure they are not denied justice.
Procedural lapses?
Akshay, Mukesh, Vinay and Pawan were handed the death sentence in September 2013 by a trial court. Their sentence was confirmed by the high court in March 2014. The Supreme Court stayed the sentence in July 2014. The hearing on their appeals, however, began only in April this year.
The amicus curiae told the Supreme Court that there were many procedural lapses in the trial of the four men and that the death sentence was awarded as one penalty fits all. According to them, the evidence does not show that the men had conspired to commit the crime.
