In what could be called as a classic case of delayed justice when compared to the Shakti Mills case where the fast track court had given death sentence to the 3 convicts accused of raping a photo journalist and a telephone operator in Mumbai’s Shakti Mills compound, the Nirbhaya’s case is still continuing with the Supreme Court asking the Counsel to produce the Dying Declaration of the victim in court.

It looks more like a trial of Nirbhaya than the accused Mukesh and Pawan and the other two who were given the death sentence for the gang-rape and assault on the  23-year-old paramedical student inside a private bus in December  2012 who eventually died of grave injuries caused because of the heinous act.


Now the latest news is that the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Delhi Police to show the dying declaration of the gang-rape victim as it extended its interim order putting on hold the execution of death sentence of Mukesh and Pawan Gupta who were convicted of the crime.  The apex court bench consisting of Justice BS Chauhan and Justice J Chelameswar asked Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra to produce the dying declaration as Counsel ML Sharma appearing for Mukesh and Pawan expressed his inability to produce it before the court. Justice Chelameswar observed: "If dying declaration is convincing, then we don't think why this court should interfere in the matter.


Now the accused Mukesh and Pawan have contended that the prosecution's story that the victim's end came because of heavy bleeding on account of serious injuries to her intestines was not confirmed by the post-mortem report by the Singapore hospital.


This is actually where the technicalities of our legal system help the accused in misusing it. How can the Singapore hospital confirm the post-mortem report when she was airlifted much later after being treated in the Delhi Hospital? The air lifting to Singapore was a last minute act by the Government of India to save its face as she was already sinking and if anything would happen to her would only aggravate the riotous situation in Delhi.

They accused have  also contended that their trial was not free and fair, and the trial that started in January  21, 2013, was under "public/political pressure" with "object to hang the petitioners (Mukesh and Pawan) and other accused people". Describing the entire trial as "miscarriage of justice", the petitioners have contended that they were represented by a state-appointed advocate.

This seems to be more of miscarriage of Justice to Nirbhaya and she still continues to suffer…