[Breaking] Nirbhaya: Supreme Court dismisses juvenility plea of death row convict, Pawan Kumar Gupta

The Supreme Court today dismissed the plea filed by Pawan Gupta, one of the convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya rape case, claiming that he was a juvenile at the time when he committed the offence. .Gupta had approached the Apex Court against the decision of the Delhi High Court delivered on December 19, 2019..The Supreme Court Bench of Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, and AS Bopanna had reserved its judgment on Pawan Gupta's plea for juvenility after taking up the case for hearing at 1.45 in the afternoon.While dismissing the plea, the Court said that while the law does provide for a plea of juvenility to be raised at any stage, the same provision cannot be used to re-agitate the issue repeatedly, especially when the issue has been decided on by all Courts up to the Supreme Court.The judgment also goes to explain the scope and extent of the provisions under Section 7A of the Supreme Court. It said,."Section 7A of the JJ Act stipulates that an application can be filed before any court at any stage including the stage after the final disposal of the petition. However, once a convict has chosen to take the plea of juvenility before the learned Magistrate, High Court and also before the Supreme Court and the said plea has been rejected up to the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot be allowed to reagitate the plea of juvenility by filing fresh application under Section 7A of the JJ Act.".The Court thus said that it finds no reason to interfere with the decision of the Delhi High Court..This development comes close in the heels of a Delhi court issuing a fresh warrant last Friday for the execution of the death penalty of the four convicts in the Nirbhaya rape case. As per this warrant, the four convicts i.e. Akshay, Pawan, Mukesh and Vinay are to be hanged on February 1 at 6 am..Representing Pawan Gupta in his plea before the Supreme Court, Advocate AP Singh had presented documents from Gupta's school and his matriculation certificate to assert his age showing that he was a juvenile at the time the offence was committed. .The Court asked the counsel why the plea was being raised now given that the plea of juvenility has been considered and addressed by the Court in its decision of July 2018 dismissing the review petition. Justice Bhushan remarked,."This matter was considered in the decision of the review petition delivered in July 2018. Can you now agitate the same issue again based on the same material?"Justice Ashok Bhusan.Allied observations were also made by Justice Banumathi. ."You have raised this plea before the trial Court, which was rejected in 2013. Even the High Court and the Supreme Court have rejected this plea earlier. If this was the first time you were raising the issue, it may have been different."Justice R Banumathi.Singh, however sought to argue that the plea for juvenility can be raised at any time, according to the law. He also hinted that there may be a conspiracy in play to conceal the fact on the issue. .He further argued that there was miscarriage of justice by the Trial Court, where the trial was hurried. He says that the order on juvenility was passed immediately on filing of documents without their supply to the accused.."At the time of admission, Pawan's parents would not have imagined he would be accused in Nirbhaya case."Advocate AP Singh.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the prosecution in the case, contended that while the law allows for the claim of juvenility to be raised at any time, the same plea cannot be raised repeatedly.."It would be a travesty of justice if he (Pawan Gupta) is allowed to raise this issue at this stage repeatedly after the same being rejected by various forums."Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.The Court was told that the claim of juvenility was made before the Trial Court, but the order of January 2013 takes on record that the parents of the two accused, Pawan and Vinay, had not disputed the process of determining the age of the accused..The plea for juvenility, relying on the same material, was dismissed by the Delhi High Court while this question was addressed by the Supreme Court in the review petition, Mehta pointed out..During the hearing in the case, Singh also raised his grievance with the adverse observations made by the Delhi High Court against him in the order of December 19, 2019. The Court told Singh that the issue was not related to Pawan Gupta's SLP before it at the moment..Taking note of Singh's grievance, however, the Court hinted that it would allow him liberty to approach the appropriate forum to agitate the issue of adverse observations.Read Order: