Dec 16 rape: SC rejects counsel’s claim that victim not violated with rod | Latest News Delhi - Hindustan Times
close_game
close_game

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

Hindustan Times | BySatya Prakash, New Delhi
Jul 29, 2016 11:58 PM IST

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.
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.

Hindustan Times - your fastest source for breaking news! Read now.

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.

Experience the old-world charm of Delhi through a heritage walk with HT! Participate now.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Share this article
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
OPEN APP
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Saturday, March 09, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On