- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court has rejected the plea of juvenility raised by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case.A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice R Banumathi, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice A S Bopanna held that the same claim was rejected by the Delhi High Court.The convict’s lawyer Advocate A P Singh...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has rejected the plea of juvenility raised by Pawan Kumar Gupta, one of the four death row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice R Banumathi, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice A S Bopanna held that the same claim was rejected by the Delhi High Court.
The convict’s lawyer Advocate A P Singh had claimed that his school leaving certificate that he was a juvenile at the time of the crime, and argued that his date of birth is October 8, 1996.
It was also stated that a magistrate had passed an order in 2013 holding him to be a major, without hearing him and that the police had not produced the school records in the case.
Also, no opportunity was given to the convict’s lawyer to examine papers submitted by the police regarding his age, the convict stated in his petition.
However Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that these contentions were raised earlier and were rejected by the Delhi High Court.
In 2018, the Supreme Court too had specifically examined his claim based on his school certificate and rejected the claim.