Victim’s brother-in-law ready to take matter to Supreme Court

‘If state does not appeal, we will’

The distraught brother-in-law of the victim described the Bombay high court’s ruling on Monday commuting the death sentence of the two convicts to life imprisonment, as “absolutely shocking”.

“Despite committing such a heinous crime, the two convicts will not be hanged. This will embolden other criminals and they too will get away with lesser punishment,” he told TOI.

He said the state must consider moving an appeal in the Supreme Court against the HC ruling. “If the state does not then we might consider it,” he added.

‘Why delay death penalty execution? ‘

Noted lawyer Ujjwal Nikam, who was the special prosecutor in the trial before the Pune court, said, “It really pains me to learn that because of the delay in the execution of the death penalty, the two convicts could get the advantage of a lesser punishment.”

There was no direct evidence and the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence. The Pune court pronounced a death penalty verdict in 2007, which was confirmed by the Bombay high court, and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015, he added.

“The governor rejected the duo’s mercy petition and so did the President in 2017. But surprisingly, the administration could not find time to apply for a death warrant. It finally did so this year and the death warrant was issued on April 10, 2019,” Nikam added.

The moot question is why was there a delay in the execution of the death penalty when the President of India had rejected the mercy petition of the two convicts in 2017, he said.

“Who is responsible for the delay? These matters call for a probe. It is only in the rarest of rare cases that death penalties get pronounced. The objective behind such a sentence is not only to punish the criminals but also sent a strong message to other like-minded criminals and avoid recurrence of such cases,” he added.
‘It can be challenged in apex court’

Senior inspector Rajendra Patil, who investigated the case and filed a chargesheet, told TOI, “The office of the advocate general should take a call on challenging the high court judgment in the Supreme Court. The death penalty pronounced by the trial court, which was confirmed and upheld by the superior courts, was a deterrent and correct. We had taken immense efforts in collecting evidence, preparing a proper chargesheet and securing the conviction of the two accused. The death penalty could not be executed because it was challenged by the convicts on the grounds of delay.”

‘Court has done justice’

Lawyer Atul Patil, who defended the two accused in the trial court, said, “The case was based on circumstantial evidence. The HC has done justice by commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment.”