The first round of submissions were made by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran who unequivocally stated that “one penalty fits all” order was given by the lower court and stated that penalty of death sentence should be struck down as it violated the fundamental norms of sentencing.
Ramachandran in the first part of submissions had stated that the accused were treated like a “homogenous class of condemned criminals” who were not given any “individualised sentencing process.” The senior advocate had also submitted that fair trial was denied to the accused and the sentencing violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to life).
Hedge while questioning the evidence stated that the statement of Nirbhaya’s friend who was accompanying her and was of primary importance is “discordant”. “His statement kept on improving and was embellished as if done to strengthen the prosecution’s case,” said Hedge.
Hegde even questioned the preliminary FIR filed on December 17, 2012, which forms the basis of the case.
“Although an FIR need not be an encyclopedia of the crime, it is treated as a statement of the witness/complainant and can be used to contradict the witness. The deposition of the friend suffers from significant omissions amounting to contradictions,” Hegde had said.
The report also questioned one of the most significant pieces of evidence that corroborates the complainant’s version — the evidence seized from the accused. But Hegde had cast severe doubt on the veracity of such seizures.
Comments
0 comment