Delhi Court today dismissed convict Mukesh's plea to quash his conviction on the ground that the Prosecution concealed vital documents during the trial.."Application dismissed, matter referred to Bar CounciI of India (BCI)."Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana.As per the death warrant, four Nirbhaya convicts are slated to be hanged on March 20 at 5.30 am..Filed through Advocate ML Sharma, Mukesh sought to quash his conviction on the ground that the Prosecution knowingly and deliberately concealed some vital documents during the trial..It was argued that if the prosecution had not fraudulently withheld the documentation carried out by Delhi and Rajasthan police with respect to the apprehension of convict Mukesh, he would have been pronounced innocent by the court..It was thus argued that the final order against Mukesh was hit by section 44 of the Evidence Act..The Prosecution opposed the application and sought its dismissal on the ground that Section 44 of the Evidence Act came into picture only when any judgement relied upon by any adverse party was tainted with fraud..It was added that the application was preferred only to delay the execution of the death Warrants against the convicts..After hearing the arguments, the Court dismissed the application on the ground that the issue had already been addressed by the Delhi High Court..Observing that it was indeed the duty of an advocate to represent his client to the best of his/her abilities, the Court remarked, "The duty cannot be extended to the extent of procuring relief to the client by resorting to all kinds of schemes and stratagems."."Unfortunately some mischievous brains have been projecting and consciously nurturing a misplaced notion that there is a premium over dishonesty mendacity in this country. This court is of the considered opinion that the authorities involved in the dispensation of Justice are duty bound to dispel such ill founded notion."Court.The Court stated that it was the duty of the Bar to render full cooperation and assistance to the court to ensure that justice is delivered expeditiously to the litigants without any unnecessary delay..Keeping in view of the facts of the present case, the Court thus ordered, "In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the conduct of the counsel for the convict needs to be brought to notice of the Bar Council of India for appropriate sensitization.
Delhi Court today dismissed convict Mukesh's plea to quash his conviction on the ground that the Prosecution concealed vital documents during the trial.."Application dismissed, matter referred to Bar CounciI of India (BCI)."Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana.As per the death warrant, four Nirbhaya convicts are slated to be hanged on March 20 at 5.30 am..Filed through Advocate ML Sharma, Mukesh sought to quash his conviction on the ground that the Prosecution knowingly and deliberately concealed some vital documents during the trial..It was argued that if the prosecution had not fraudulently withheld the documentation carried out by Delhi and Rajasthan police with respect to the apprehension of convict Mukesh, he would have been pronounced innocent by the court..It was thus argued that the final order against Mukesh was hit by section 44 of the Evidence Act..The Prosecution opposed the application and sought its dismissal on the ground that Section 44 of the Evidence Act came into picture only when any judgement relied upon by any adverse party was tainted with fraud..It was added that the application was preferred only to delay the execution of the death Warrants against the convicts..After hearing the arguments, the Court dismissed the application on the ground that the issue had already been addressed by the Delhi High Court..Observing that it was indeed the duty of an advocate to represent his client to the best of his/her abilities, the Court remarked, "The duty cannot be extended to the extent of procuring relief to the client by resorting to all kinds of schemes and stratagems."."Unfortunately some mischievous brains have been projecting and consciously nurturing a misplaced notion that there is a premium over dishonesty mendacity in this country. This court is of the considered opinion that the authorities involved in the dispensation of Justice are duty bound to dispel such ill founded notion."Court.The Court stated that it was the duty of the Bar to render full cooperation and assistance to the court to ensure that justice is delivered expeditiously to the litigants without any unnecessary delay..Keeping in view of the facts of the present case, the Court thus ordered, "In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the conduct of the counsel for the convict needs to be brought to notice of the Bar Council of India for appropriate sensitization.
