Nirbhaya case convict not a juvenile, says SC; nixes plea

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected death row prisoner Pawan Gupta’s claim that he was a juvenile at the time of the crime in December 2012 and said it was too late in the day to overcome the concurrent findings of the trial court, the Delhi high court and the SC that he was a major when he and his associates sexually assaulted Nirbhaya, resulting in her death.
A bench of Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna gave a patient hearing to Pawan’s counsel A P Singh but accepted solicitor general Tushar Mehta’s submission that the trial court’s January 10, 2013, order holding Pawan a major was never challenged and it was too late for the convict to claim afresh that he was a juvenile in December 2012, which was contrary to the records.
The bench said, “In the present case, this is not the first time that the petitioner has raised the plea of juvenility. When the matter was pending before the trial court, plea of juvenility was raised by the petitioner at the first instance. The trial court on January 10, 2013, had held that the age verification report of Pawan Kumar Gupta was received and that the accused did not dispute the age verification report filed by the investigating officer and further, he did not dispute the age to be above 18 years at the time of commission of the offence.
“When the criminal appeal (against conviction) was pending before the HC, Pawan and co-accused Vinay had raised the plea that they were juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. Upon consideration of the submissions, the HC had on March 13, 2014, rejected their pleas of juvenility.”
The bench further said, “The same plea was again raised by Pawan in the review petition before the SC. After referring to the submissions of counsel for the NCT of Delhi and the order of metropolitan magistrate dated January 10, 2013, the Supreme Court on July 9, 2018, had rejected pleas of juvenility by Pawan and Vinay and that order has attained finality.
“Considering the earlier orders passed by the magistrate on January 10, 2013, the HC’s March 13, 2014, judgment and the order Supreme Court’s July 9, 2018, order, in our view, the single judge bench of the Delhi HC rightly dismissed (Pawan’s) revision petition. We do not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order.”
Among the accused, only one was found to be juvenile, who on confirmation of his involvement in the crime was lodged in a reform home for three years and has since been released.