Lawyer denies Dec. 16 rape

New Delhi: In a sudden twist to the Nirbhaya gangrape case, counsel for the convicts asserted in the SC that there was no gangrape on December 16, 2012, as alleged by the prosecution. Counsel M. L. Sharma further rejected the rod rape theory.

In a sudden twist, counsel for the convicts asserted in the Supreme Court that there was no gangrape on December 16, 2012 as alleged by the prosecution.

Making this submission before a three- judge bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra, Ms R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan, counsel M. L. Sharma, appearing for two convicts Mukesh and Pawan Gupta, said the prosecution could not answer this. He maintained that there was no rape and no rod rape and the police fabricated documents and evidence in the trial court and fed the media to provoke public against the accused.

The counsel said that when the girl was admitted in the hospital on December 16, 2012 at 11.15 pm doctor found her that she was in fit state of mind and recorded her statement. She narrated her story, but did not say a single word about unnatural rape of inserting a rod. Quoting medical reports, he said medically it is impossible to damage various internal organs, including intestine, through per- vagina route without injuring uterus. It is next to impossible and the anatomy of the body does not permit such eventuality.

Mr Sharma made these submissions in his final arguments in the appeals filed by four convicts seeking to quash the Delhi high Court verdict confirming the death sentence awarded to them for the December 16, 2012 incident in the capital. The convicts — Vinay Sharma ( 21), Akshay Thakur ( 29), Mukesh ( 27) and Pawan Gupta ( 20) — were awarded death sentence and the apex court had stayed their execution. The Delhi high court had upheld their conviction and award of death penalty by terming the offence as “extremely fiendish” and “unparallelled in the history of criminal jurisprudence” and said the “exemplary punishment” was the need of the hour.

Mr Sharma submitted that there was no “substance or material piece of evidence” and there were contradictions in the depositions of the victim and her friend about the offence and the offenders. He argued that the testimony of the SDM cannot be relied on as she had deposed that the victim was “comfortable, happy and willing to record her statement.”