Supreme Court Upholds Death Penalty, Dismisses Review Petitions in Nirbhaya Case

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the review petitions filed by the death row convicts of the 2012 Nirbhaya case. The Court upheld the death penalty awarded to the convicts in its May 2017 decision. This was despite both the defence advocate as well as the amicus curiae raising objections over the procedural inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The Court also declined to take into account the mitigating factors such as their young age, poor and rural background, family circumstances, lack of criminal antecedents and good conduct in prison. The Court instead focused on the barbarous nature of the crime.

In the course of the hearings the defence had challenged the inconsistencies in the prosecution's sequence of events particularly on the details of how the crime unfolded as well as the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR). The Supreme Court had dismissed the claims firstly that all the accused persons had been identified in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) by the other victim. The Court also condoned the delay in filing the FIR on the ground that the police officials at the time were predictably more occupied in ensuring they were able to get as much information as possible from the victims.

The main accused in the case committed suicide while the case was still under trial. The juvenile offender was sent to a correctional home and has served his sentence. The remaining four convicts were given the death penalty. The defence case was that the investigation was shoddy and the accused were being tried so as to appease the public outrage that emerged following the reported crime.

Now that the Court has dismissed the review petitions and upheld its May 2017 decision, the only options left for the convicts to avoid the noose is either a curative petition in the Supreme Court, or a mercy plea to the president. However, even if there were inconsistencies in the investigation, considering the horrific nature of the crime, as well as that India is still viewed as being unsafe for women, any respite through either option is most unlikely. The convicts will be made examples of. Whether the same will happen in the case of Kathua and Unnao is another matter.