Breaking: Sentence in #Nirbhaya Case Should Be Set aside: Amicus Raju Ramachandran [Read Written Submissions-Part-1]

He submitted before the Supreme Court that a fair hearing under Section 235 of the CrPC was not held in the case by the trial court that passed the judgment.Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, one of the two amicus curiae appointed by Supreme Court in the Nirbhaya Case submitted before the Court that the order on sentence passed by the Trial Court on 11.9.2013 and confirmed by the High. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, one of the two amicus curiae appointed by Supreme Court in the Nirbhaya Case submitted before the Court that the order on sentence passed by the Trial Court on 11.9.2013 and confirmed by the High Court, ought to be set aside for violating the fundamental norms of sentencing, constitutionally ingrained, statutorily reflected and judicially interpreted by the Apex Court. He submitted that, in the present case, though this procedure was formally complied with, the Trial Court and the High Court failed to appreciate the spirit of the law.According to him each of the following six deficiencies, taken individually or cumulatively resulted in the denial of a fair and effective hearing on the question of sentence to each of the accused a. the Trial Court failed to put any of the accused to notice on the question of imposition of the death sentence; b. sufficient time to reflect on the question of death penalty was not granted to the accused; c. none of the accused were heard in person; d. the Trial Court made no genuine effort to elicit those circumstances of the accused, which would have a bearing on the question of sentence, especially the mitigating factors in cases of death penalty; e. no separate reasons were given for the imposition of death penalty on each of the accused and a ‘one-penalty-fits-all’ order was imposed. In other words, there was no individualized or personalized hearing or application of mind on the question of sentence; f. The Trial Court failed to put the accused to notice of the range of mitigating factors they could have pleaded, in case death penalty was sought to be imposed on them Read the first part of written submissions here.