Dec 16 rape: SC rejects counsel’s claim that victim not violated with rod | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Aug 17, 2017-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Dec 16 rape: SC rejects counsel’s claim that victim not violated with rod

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected defence counsel ML Sharma’s claim that the December 16 gang-rape victim was not violated with an iron rod, saying it can’t be raised at the stage of appeal.

delhi Updated: Jul 29, 2016 23:58 IST
Satya Prakash
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected defence counsel ML Sharma’s claim that the December 16 gang-rape victim was not violated with an iron rod, saying it can’t be raised at the stage of appeal.
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected defence counsel ML Sharma’s claim that the December 16 gang-rape victim was not violated with an iron rod, saying it can’t be raised at the stage of appeal.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected defence counsel ML Sharma’s claim that the December 16 gang-rape victim was not violated with an iron rod, saying it can’t be raised at the stage of appeal.

“Why didn’t you raise it during the trial? It’s nowhere on the record. You can’t argue about something which is not there on record,” a three-judge bench headed by justice Dipak Misra told Sharma, who is representing convicts Mukesh and Pawan Gupta.

The defence counsel contended it wasn’t medically possible that the victim’s intestine was pulled out without damaging her uterus, if an iron rod was repeatedly inserted. Post-mortem report prepared by the Singapore hospital where she died during treatment stated her uterus and ovaries were intact, Sharma contended.

He sought to debunk the rod insertion theory of the prosecution, saying the DNA report of the victim’s blood sample taken from the bus can’t match with that taken on the morning of December 17, 2012, as she had been given three units of blood.

Citing a US case, he said the DNA of a patient changes after being administered someone else’s blood.

But the bench rejected his argument, saying “we are not experts on DNA. It’s not part of the record. You should have raised it during the trial”.

Objecting to Sharma’s claims, senior counsel, Siddharth Luthra, representing the prosecution, asked why the prosecution witnesses were not recalled.

Sharma said he had raised it before the Delhi high court.

The bench asked Sharma to finish his arguments on Monday when the hearing would resume.