HC, Trial Court Grossly Erred In Imposing Death Penalty In #Nirbhaya Case: Amicus Raju Ramachandran [Read Written Submissions Part-II]

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, one of the amicus curiae in Nirbhaya case, has submitted before a three-judge Supreme Court bench hearing appeals by death row convicts that both the high court and trial court grossly erred in imposing death penalty to the accused without considering the circumstances relating to the criminals.In the first part of his written submissions, he had submitted. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, one of the amicus curiae in Nirbhaya case, has submitted before a three-judge Supreme Court bench hearing appeals by death row convicts that both the high court and trial court grossly erred in imposing death penalty to the accused without considering the circumstances relating to the criminals. Following this decision, in Gurvail Singh v. State of Punjab, 2 SCC 713, the court formulated the “crime test”, the “criminal test” and the “rarest of rare test”. The Court in Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra 5 SCC 546 also applied the “crime test”, the “criminal test” and the “rarest of rare test”, but this has been doubted by the Court in Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra 4 SCC 292.” Violation of Article 14 and 21 He submitted that while the aggravating circumstances, are a matter of trial, evidence and conviction, where adequate opportunity is given to the prosecution to prove the guilt and attendant circumstances, the mitigating circumstances are being enlisted and evaluated within a day of the conviction, and without due regard to the factors of the criminal, which can come on record only when material is taken on record.