Convict Pawana Gupta in Nirbhaya Case

Nirbhaya Case: Convicts Pawan Gupta Petition Rejected by the Supreme Court


Nirbhaya Case: Convicts Pawan Gupta petition rejected by the Supreme Court. The petition of Pawan Gupta, one of the accused in Nirbhaya, has been rejected by the Supreme Court and is considered a major in 2012. The court, after hearing the arguments of all the parties, decided that the matter had been taken up earlier and was rejected by the lower courts. The High Court verdict was correct and we do not see anything new in this petition, hence this petition is dismissed.


Let me tell you that Pawan has said in the petition that he was a minor in December 2012. His similar plea has been rejected by the Delhi High Court, after which he has filed an application in the Supreme Court to be a minor at the time of the crime. He has also filed a petition to stop the hanging on February 1. Read below what happened in the court.

What Happened in Court Today


As soon as the hearing began, the convict Pawan’s lawyer AP Singh showed Pawan’s school certificate and said that he was born on 8 October 1996. On this, Justice Ashok Bhushan said that this certificate was presented in 2017 when the accused had been convicted.

Then Justice Bhanumathi asked- Who had applied for taking documents? Then the lawyer for the convict said that I had filed the petition. The lawyer further argued that this case is registered in the name of Nirbhaya everywhere. While the official name of this case is not Nirbhaya. Lawyer AP Singh said that a big conspiracy has been hatched to hide Pawan’s age.

On this, Justice Bhushan asked that the question you are raising regarding the age of Pawan, on which action has been taken here. Can you be allowed to bring the same issue with new evidence?

The Solicitor General said in his plea that this petition has been put on the same documents, on which the first one has also been put. Justice Bhanumathi agreed with his statement.

AP Singh emphasized that we have new documents. But the court did not agree on this. Justice Bhanumathi said that the question is the same if you continue to file petitions like this, this chain will never end.

The Solicitor General said that the issue has come up in the Supreme Court. Then Justice Bhanumati said that you raised this matter in the lower court, the High Court and also in this court. It was rejected.

Read More: India Has Successfully Test Fired Nuclear-Capable K-4 Ballistic Missile Launched From Submarine

Then Justice Bhushan told Pawan’s lawyer that if this case was raised for the first time then it would have been different but you are not raising it for the first time. Then AP Singh stated that there was no lawyer in the lower court at that time. The trial court gave the verdict on the plea of ​​a minor only after hearing the public prosecutor.

Denying this, Justice Bhushan stated that the order of the trial court in 2013 on Pawan’s minorities was recorded in which Pawan was pampered with his lawyer.

Then AP Singh said that nothing was decided when Pawan was a minor at that time because everything happened in a hurry. There was no fair debate because of the hurry. Justice was not served in the trial court. A media trial took place at that time. Public opinion was used and such a decision cannot be impartial.

On this, Justice Bhanumathi said that we are discussing Pawan’s minor, you come to the issue. Then AP Singh said that see how the charge sheet was presented before the judge and how the order came. See haste in the matter. Being a minor was not taken care of.

Justice Bhanumati then stated that the lower court had taken note of the issue and also the petition. Then AP Singh said that after the decision of the lower court came, I went to Pawan and he said that go to my school for age proof. Then I went to school and brought all the documents from there, they are all verified.

The lawyer of the convicts further said that if it seems that his age has been wrongly written in school, then admission in school is proof of this. How could Pawan’s parents have foreseen that his son would grow up to commit a crime? Or how could they think that their son would be guilty in the Nirbhaya case, then write his ageless?

When AP Singh was speaking, Justice Bhanumati wanted to listen to the Solicitor General, to which AP Singh interrupted him. AP Singh said let me argue, the lower court did not listen to me, see how justice was murdered. Now when you are hearing, let me speak. The bench, hearing this, agreed to give five minutes to AP Singh.

Solicitor General (SG) started speaking after AP Singh. He said that on 7th January 2013, the age of the Pawan was asked to find out. The age verification report was filed on 10 January 2013 and it is recorded in the record. Verified copies have been submitted. Along with this, the birth certificate has also been filed. According to the law, the proof of age of anyone is a birth certificate.

The SG read out the magistrate’s order stating that ‘The accused has not raised any objection regarding the age. He has not raised any objection to be over 18 years old. They have no objection. ‘ The SG further stated that the document according to which AP Singh has filed the petition took cognizance of the Supreme Court during the review petition. But the Supreme rejected him.

Read More: Indian Female School Teacher Is First Foreigner Infected With Deadly Pneumonia Virus In China

SG read out two paragraphs of the reconsideration petition stating that the court has received the Age Verification Report and Pawan is an adult. The lower court has rightly said that Pawan is not a minor. Now if this thing is raised again on this stage, then it will be playing with justice because this premise has been rejected at all stages.

AP Singh then said that the new evidence and new documents in his petition. The Supreme Court, after hearing all the arguments, reserved its order till 2.30 pm. When the hearing resumed after about an hour, the lawyer AP Singh said that before you pass the order, I want to say that no new evidence from the school has been considered anywhere. It is also my submission that SG did not refute my contention.

Justice Bhanumathi said that the matter had been taken up earlier and was rejected by the lower courts. The High Court verdict was correct and we do not see anything new in this petition of Nirbhaya Convicts Pawan Gupta, hence this petition is dismissed.

Facebook Comments